


5*«r ^Mlt*'^'- . '^v?. >^u- '^>i t 







t 




^ PRINCETON, N. J. '^* 



Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 



Agnezv Coll. on Baptism, No. 






Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2011 with funding from 

Princeton Theological Seminary Library 



http://www.archive.org/details/christianbaptismOOripl 



i! 



CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 



AN 



EXAMINATION 



PROFESSOR STUART'S ESSAY 



N THE BIBLICAL REPOSITORY, APRIL, 1833 



THE MODE OF BAPTISM/ 



BY HENRY J. RIPLEY, 

Professor of Biblical Literature in the Newton Theological Institution. 



BOSTON: 

LINCOLN, EDMANDS & CO. 

1833. 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1833, 

By Lincoln, Edmands & Co. 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 



BOSTON: 

Bamuel N. Dickinson, Printer, 

5?, Washington Street. 






PREFACE 



The performance, which is examined in the 
following pages, is an article which was publish- 
ed in the Biblical Repository at Andover. It 
may very naturally be asked, why the Examina- 
tion was not given to the public through the 
same medium, so that the same class of readers 
might have each performance. In reply to such 
an inquiry, I have to say, that I sought for a 
place in the Repository, but my application was 
unsuccessful. 

The following note and the reply to it, will 
furnish a full view of this matter. 

Newton, July 24, 1833. 

To the Editor of the Biblical Repositoinj : 
Dear Sir, 

There is an article by rne in a state of fonvardness, intend- 
ed to occupy a ])lace in the number of the Bibhcal Repositorj- 
for October, 1833. It is an Examination of Professor Stuart's 
article on the Mode of Christian Baptism, which appeared in 
the April number of the work. It would probably require be- 
tween forty and sixty pages, perhaps more. As intended for 
the Repository, its spnit and language will not, I trust, be un- 
itvorthy of your publication. 



IV PREFACE. 

As the original article was admitted into the Repositor}> 
without any qualifying appendage, may I not cherish a strong 
confidence that justice and candor will lead to the admission of 
the proposed article ; and that it will appear in your work un- 
incumbered, and left to make its o^^^l impression ? 

Please favor me with an early reply, informing me whether 
you will thus admit the aiticle into the October number, and at 
what time it must be placed in your hands. 

With sincere respect and with earnest desires that you may 
be sustained and blessed in your valuable labors, 
I am yours, 

H. J. Ripley. 

Theol Sem. Jlndover, July 27, 1833. 
Rev. and Dear Sir, 

In reply to your note of the 24th inst. I would mform you 
that the manuscript for the October number of the Biblical 
Repository is already prepared. The prmting was commenced 
a week since, and is expected to be completed by the beginning 
of September, excepting, perhaps, the indexes. An allusion to 
these facts you will see in a note subjoined to the table of con- 
tents in the July number just issued. 

As to the general pouit of admitting anicles, you would 
hardly, in any case, expect from me a decisive answer, either 
affirmatively or negatively, before the manuscript should have 
been submitted to my examination. In the present instance, I 
cannot doubt that the spirit and language of the essay would 
be such, as to render it a valuable acquisition to the Repository'. 
Permit me, however, to observe, that the plan of the Reposi- 
tory does not include controversy. If it be asked. Why then 
was an article like that of Prof Stuart admitted ? the answer 
is easy. The Theological Seminary in this place, as well as 
that at Newton, with which you are connected, was established 
expressly to support certain principles, and to counteract cer- 
tain others; and these are known to the world. The Riblical 
Repository, as published here by individuals connected with 
the Seminar)' — although itself m no sense the organ of that 



1 



PREFACE. V 

Institution — would yet naturally be expected to maintain the 
same principles ; indeed, there would be an incongruity, were 
it to adopt articles intended directly to impugn tJiose principles. 
If, therefore. Prof Stuart, or any other gentleman, in the course 
of his ollicial duties, chooses to survey the field of one of the 
great ecclesiastical controversies, and give the results of his 
examination in the form of dispassionate and scientific dis- 
cussion, there would seem to be nothing inappropriate in 
making the Repository the medium of communicating his 
views to the public. If in doing this, the writer has committed 
mistakes which require to be publicly corrected, it would of 
course be right and proper that these should be pointed out in 
the same work. But it does seem to me a matter of question, 
whether the most liberal candor, or love of justice, could re- 
quire the admission of a formal examination and reply, which, 
from its very nature, must be in a measure polemic and per- 
sonal. It is easy to test this (juestion by a vice versa view of 
the case. Were a similar journal connected with your Semi- 
nary at Newton, the public would of right expect from it a 
calm and scientific support of the distinguishing principles of 
your church ; but had such an article appeared in it, and the 
essay of Prof. Stuart been offered in repl}', would candor or 
justice have required its admission? 

Although, therefore, I cannot but express my hearty good 
will towards a full and free discussion, on your part, of the 
subject of Baptism ; yet you will perceive that I have doubts 
on the general question as to the jDropriety of its appearing in 
the Repository. Still, if under the circumstances you see fit to 
favour me with the perusal of your manuscript, 1 will act in 
the case according to my best judgment, and as I shall feel to 
be most in accordance with the great interests which we both 
are labouring to promote. 

I need hai'dly say how much gratification it would afford 
me, if you, and the other gendemen at Newton would occasion- 
ally give me the aid of your laboure in behalf of the Repository. 
There are very many topics of deep and common interest, 
where neither our views nor our feelings can be otherwise than 
1* 



VI PREFACE. 

in unison. To me it would ever be matter of delight, to aid in 
making these prominent, both among ourselves and throughout 
our respective churches. 

With great and sincere respect, 

I am, dear sir, yours, &c. 

Edward Robinson. 
Rev. Prof. Ripley, 

Thcol. Sem. Newton. 



The hope of obtaining a place in the Repos- 
itory was abandoned ; and at my request, per- 
mission was afterwards given to make public 
the preceding correspondence, if I should deem 
it proper. 

I then concluded to alter my plan, by adapt- 
ing my little work to others besides learned 
readers, and by making it so far complete in 
itself, that it might be fully understood without 
recurring to the original article. This circum- 
stance, together with the pressure of my official 
duties, will account for its not appearing so soon 
as it may have been expected. 

I have felt the delicacy of my undertaking. 
My aversion to appear before the public as a 
writer, particularly on a controverted subject, 
^vas much increased by the relation which I 
formerly sustained to the author, whose work I 
was to examine. At the same time yielding to 
tlie call which was made for my services, I was 
encouraged by tlie thought that I should be less 



PREFACE 



exposed to the danger of eherishing unhallowed 
feeling, and of employing unkind language, than 
if the A\ riter had no speeial claims upon my 
regard ; while, on the other hand, a sense of my 
accountableness to our common JMaster, and a 
conviction of truth, would, I hoped, lead me to 
employ language not destitute of gravity and 
force. I trust, I have not erred in stating my 
convictions too strongly, nor in pointing out too 
forcibly what I deem the erroneous representa- 
tions of Professor Stuart. I have endeavored 
to avoid all appearance of arrogant assumption, 
on the one hand ; I have also labored, on the 
other, to avoid every feeling of unworthy sub- 
missiveness. 

Should any of my readers think it impossible, 
that a man of Professor Stuart's erudition should 
have justly laid himself open to so many cor- 
rections, as the following pages exhibit, I have 
only to request, that they look not at any man's 
assertion of opinions, but at the arguments pro- 
duced. And here, lest I should seem to under- 
value the labors in general, of one who emi- 
nently deserves well of the Christian public, I 
would make a respectful and grateful mention 
of the helps for fundamental instruction with 
which he has favored theological students ; of 
his several valuable essays ; and of his Com- 



Vlll PREFACE. 

mentaries on the Epistles to the Hebrews and 
to the Romans. Works of such general excel- 
lence cannot fail to secure for their author the 
esteem of a discerning community. I have in- 
deed, in the following pages, fully expressed my 
dissent from the views which he has advanced, 
in his Commentary, on Romans 6 : 3, 4. But his 
remarks on these verses do not exhibit his usual 
strength. That he should fall into errors when 
writing on baptism, is not surprising. It not 
unfrequently happens, that men of distinguished 
ability seem, when contending against the obvi- 
ously scriptural view of this subject, to be shorn 
of their strength. 

Many persons are unwilling to listen to a dis- 
cussion concerning baptism. Besides other rea- 
sons, they profess to consider it a dispute about 
a mere mode or form. I do not regard it in 
this light. If I did, I should think my time and 
labor very, poorly bestowed. The controversy 
'respecting baptism, in all its parts, is more im- 
portant than many imagine. The alterations 
which men have made in respect to this ordi- 
nance, have had a very unhappy influence on 
the cause of Christ. It is, therefore, a worthy 
service, to attempt the removal of these altera- 
tions and the restoring of its primitive simplicitv 
to one of the institutes of our Lord. The 



1 



PREFACE. IX 



union of real Christians in feeling and action 
is deeply involved in right views of this sub- 
ject. Roman Catholic errors could be more 
successfully combatted, if the unscriptural prac- 
tices in respect to baptism, which prevail in 
many Protestant communities, should be aban- 
doned. For it is well known, that Papists 
have parried the force of arguments which 
Protestants have brought against their errors, 
by inquiring. What authority have you for in- 
fant baptism ? When I see the attachment of 
many -to infant baptism, and the kind of defence 
by which they support it, I am not at all sur- 
prised at the pertinacious adherence of Roman 
Catholics to practices which depend on the au- 
thority of the church. The renouncing of un- 
scriptural practices, and the maintaining of only 
those practices which the Scripture sanctions 
respecting baptism, on the part of those who are 
engaged in Christian missions, would also prevent 
future generations of the now unevangelized 
parts of the earth from being afflicted with those 
numerous and often unkind controversies which 
have flowed, either directly or indirectly, from 
errors on this subject. 

The following fact is enough to show that 
the heathen nations, which are now visited by 
Christian missionaries, are exposed to the evils 



PREFACE 



which have resulted from errors respecting bap- 
tism ; and that the light, which controversy 
has elicited on this subject, may for a long 
time be withheld from the nations that shall 
become acquainted with the gospel. At the 
American Mission press, in Bombay, there was 
reprinted in 1 832, with notes and an appendix, 
'- A Sermon on the Baptizing of Infants," by 
Stephen Marshall, B. D. of the Westminster 
Assembly of Divines ; preached nearly two hun- 
dred years ago, "in the Abbey-Church at West- 
minster, at the morning lecture appointed by 
the Honorable House of Commons." iVnd in 
the Oriental Christian Spectator, a periodical 
issued from the same press, there is a controversy 
on this part of Christian duty. 

Let Christians recede from what the Bible 
does not authorize, and the happy results, above 
named, might be hoped for. In this day of 
Christian enterprise, when the servants of Christ 
are carrying the gospel to all nations, how 
mournful is the reflection, that together with the 
gospel, many are carrying and are sowing the 
seeds of future discord. Christ indeed is preach- 
ed, clearly for the most part, and successfully; 
and therein we must all heartily rejoice. But 
how nuich better were it, if that joy were un- 
mingled. The instructers of young mmisters 



1 



PREFACE. XI 

and of missionaries ought to bear this in mind; 
and they ought to beware, lest they encourage 
the spread, among heathen nations, of practices 
which have not tlie Saviour's sanction ; but 
which, like certain other ancient traditions, 
make void the word of God. 

H. J. E. 
Newto.v, (Mass.) Dec. 10, 1833, 



CONTENTS 






SECTION FIRST. 

Classical Usage of ^arcrl'Zio \haptizo] 13 

SECTION SECOND. 

Septuagint and Apocryphal Usage 21 

SECTION THIRD. 

New Testament Usage, when not applied to the Rite of Baptism 38 

SECTION FOURTH. 

Does BuTiTil^M [hajitizo} imply that the Rite was by Immersion ? 

§1. General usage of the word in the New Testament, as 

applied to this Rite 55 

§2. Circumstances attending Baptism 62 

§3. Jewish Proselyte-Baptism 105 

§4. Baptism in the early Christian Churches 110 

§5. Is the Mode essential to the Rite ? 114 

SECTION FIFTH. 

MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS. 

Pharisaic Righteousness 135 

Language not sufficiently guarded 136 

Tendency of Leading Principles 1 38 

Influence on the Philological Study of the Bible 138 

Importance of this Examination. — Infant Baptism 141 

Acts 19 : 1— G 144 

The Letter from " An Invisible Hand." — Restricted Com- 
munion 147 



EXAMINATION 



H- 



The article on the Mode of Baptism, in the Biblical 
Repository lor April 1S33, is in its author's usual style 
of research and apparent confidence in tlie strength of 
his positions. It is an interesting document, and is wor- 
thy of very serious attention. With sincere respect for 
its author, as one of my theological instructers, and a 
benefactor to all who love sacred learning, I purpose to 
present a condensed view of the article, and to examine 
its leading parts. 

In the subsequent pages, the same order of topics will 
be preserved, which is followed in the article under 
examination, and much of its language will also be 
retained. 

SECTION FIRST. 

" JTorm and Classical use of the icord Samiiio,''^ [baptizo\ 



"The original etymological root of .^(X7ttI':o) [baptizo], 
{iunro) [bapto], as also of the nouns and adjectives" kin- 
dred with them, *' appears plainly to be the monosyllable 

jj4jp^* [Bap]. " The leading and original meaning 

of" this monosyllable "seems to have been dippings 
plunging, immcrging, soaking, or drenching, in some liquid 



14 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

substance. As kindred to this meaning, and closely unit- 
ed with it, the idea of dyeings coloring, tinging, seems also 
to have been often associated with the original root, and 

to have passed into many of its derivates."* " The 

two ideas of immersion and of dyeing or coloring lie at 
the basis of the words derived from BATI [bap], in most 
of their forms ; although, in a i^t^w cases, usage has con- 
fined some particular words among these derivates solely 
to one class of meanings; for example, ^acpsvg, a dyer, 
^ucpslov, a dyer^s shop, ^uTcncrig, immersion, submersion, 
washing, ifcc." t 

The precise difference between the words Sanio) [bap- 
to] and ^u7TTi:o) [baptizo] is, that "while they both agree 
in one common and original meaning, namely, that of 
immersion oy plunging, ''^\ usage has employed ^(jctitm [bap- 
to] to express the idea of dyeing, coloring, as well as the 
idea of dipping or plunging ; while t?arrr/l'o> [baptizo] is 
not employed in the additional signification of dyeing or 
coloring.^ 

It has sometimes been said, that Sarciiib) differs from 
SuniM^ in being a frequentative form of the latter, that is, 
in denoting repetition of tlie action which it indicates ; 
on the other hand, it would seem to have been once a 
" common criticism" that Sumi^o) has a diminutive sense. 
Both of these opinions are justly regarded by the author 
of the article now under consideration as untenable. || 

The two words ^x'xtitm and ^^urrT(':io are examined, as 
they are so intimately related in meaning. I proceed 
to mention the several meanings which Prof. Stuart 
ascribes to these two words, as used by ancient classical 
authors. 

" What are the classical tucanings of riumot and SanrlZcoV^ 

* P. 2!)1. t P. 292. t P. 2!>2. § Pp. 2l»2, 293. |1 Pp. 21)4—297. 



CLASSICAL USAGE. 15 

1. Both of these words "menu to dip, plunge, ovimmcrge 
into any thing liquid. All Icxicogrnphers and critics of 
any note are agreed in this." * 

This meaning is sustained by references to Homer, 
Pindar, Aristotle, Aristophanes, Heraclides P(»nticus, 
Herodotus, Aratus, Xenophon, Plutarch, Lucian, Diodo- 
rus Sicuhis, Plato, Epictetus, Hippocrates, Strabo, Po- 
lybius, Josephus. From the numerous <juotations fur- 
nished in the article, I present the following as spe- 
cimens. 

*' Homer, Od. I. 392, As ichcn a smith dips or plunges 
(^SCcTTTet) a hatchet or huge poIc-ax into cold loater, viz. to 
harden them." 

"Pindar, Pyth. IT. 139, describes the impotent malice 
of his enemies, by representing himself to be like the 
cork upon a net in the sea, which does not sink : As 
when a net is cast into the sea, the cork swims above, so am 
/uNPLUNGED (ai^uTTTiffToc); ou which thc Greek scholiast, 
in commenting, says: "As the cork dv dvyei, does not sink, 
so I am u.idTTTKjTog, unplunged, not immersed. . . . The 
cork remains (xSutttictto;, and swims on the surface of 
the sea, being of a nature which is tc^umicrTo; ; in like 
manner I am dSunTiaTog.^^ In the beginning of this ex- 
planation, the scholiast says : "Like the cork of a net in 
the sea, ov ^anrll^ofiai^ I am not plunged or sunk."*^ The 
frequent repetition of the same words and sentiment, in 
this scholion, shows, in all probability, that it is compil- 
ed from different annotators upon the text. But the 
sense of SutitCioj in all, is too clear to admit of any doubt." 

"Herodotus, in Euterpe, speaking of an Egyptian 
who happens to touch a swine, says: Going to the 
river [Nile], he dips himself (eSaipe iuvrdr) with his 
clothes. ^^ 

* P. 298. 



16 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

"Plutarch, Parall. Grace. Rom. p. 545, speaking of 
the stratagem of a Roman general in order to secure 
victory, says: He setup a tropluj^ on wMch dipping his 
hand into blood (ei; to alaa . . . SurciUyu;^^ he ivrotc this in- 
scription, etc. In Vol. VI. p. 633 (edit. Reiske), plunge 
{H(xnTiaov') yourself into the sea. Vol. X. p. 118, Then 
plunging (^u7til':o)r) himself into the lahe Copaisy 

"Diodorus Siculus, edit. Heyne IV. p. 118, Tl^wse 
shij) being sunk or merged {SaTrTujOelarjg). Some other 
editions read rjvdiu&ela)];, plunged into the deep, ^hich is 
a good gloss." ^ 

"2. The verb ('?<^>tt{// means to plunge or thrust into any 
thing that is solid, but permeable ; to plunge in so as to 
cover or enclose the thing plunged." t 

This meaning is sustained by references to Lycophron, 
Philippus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Euripides. 
One example may serve as a specimen. Dionysius of 
Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. V. 1.5. says ; The one thrust 
i^^uilKtc) his spear betiveen the other*s ribs, icho at the same 
instant [thrust his] into his bclli/.^^f 

" 3. The verb §u7in» only is employed, in order ta 
convey the meaning, to dip out, to dip up, by plunging a 
vessel into a liquid and drawing it up."§ 

References are here made to Euripides, Theocritus, 
Hermolaus, Lycophron, Aristotle, Callimachus, Nicander. 

"4. The verb .^urrroi only, (and its derivatives in point 
of form,) signifies to tinge, di/e, or fo/or."|| As in Ho- 
mer, Aristophanes, Aristotle, Lucian, Herodotus, Plu- 
tarch, Diodorus Siculus, INIarcus Antoninus, Plato, Hel- 
ladius, Josephus. 

"Aristophanes, Plut. Act. H. Sc. 5, Do not adorn 
yourself with garments of variegated appearance, colored 

* Pp. 208—300. t P. 300. I P. 301. § P. 301. j] P. 301. 



CLASSICAL USAGE. 17 

(*?u,Tro}»' adj.) at a great eipcnsc. In Avos, }). 5'26, the 

poet speaks oi hqvi; ^amdg, a colored bird. In Acharn. 
Act. I. Sc. I, lie makes one of his bullies say : Lest I 
TiSGKi/ouwith a Sardinian hue, ol ^Cupot ^uuuu l^undituxxor, 
i. e. beat you until you are all besmeared with blood ; in 
other words, until you become of a red color."* 

"5. The word ^unii^ot means to overwhelm, literally 
and figuratively in a variety of ways."t As in Aristotle, 
Evenus, Ileliodorus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Plato, Lu- 
cian, Josephus, Philo Judaeus, Diodorus Siculus, Justin 
Martyr, Plutarch, Chrysostom. 

" Aristotle, de Mirabil. Ausc. speaks of a saying 
among the Phenicians, that there were certain places 
beyond the pillars of Hercules, ivhich when it is ebb-tide, 
are not overflow^ed (//^ SunTl'Cead-ui^, but at full-tide arc 
overjloioed [xaTux).v:,^ad-ca'j ; which word is here used, as 
an equivalent for ^^umCleaO-ui.^^ 

" Plato, Conviv. p. 17G, / myself am one of those who 
were drenched or overwhelmed (^e^unTiaiuivojp'^ yester- 
day, viz. with wine. In another place : Having over- 
whelmed {^BujiTluuGa^ Alexander with much iciney 

"Diodorus Siculus, Tom. I. p. 107, Most of the land 
animals that are intercepted by the river [Nile], perish, 
being overwhelmed (Sum(';oiitevu) • here used in the lit- 
eral sense. Tom. VII. p. 191, llie river, borne along by 
a more violent current, overwhelmed (i^dnn'^e) many ; 
the literal signification. Tom. I. p. 129, And because 
they [the nobles] have a supply by these means [presents], 
they do not overwhelm their subjects loith taxes. Figu- 
rative."! 

" 6. BtjLTXTbi is also employed in the sense to smear, to 
bathe, by the application of liquid to the surface, etc."§ 

*P. 302. f P. 303. X Pp. 303, 304. § P. 305. 

2* 



18 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

References are here made to Sophocles, iEschylus, 
and Aristophanes. The mention of liquid being applied 
tpHhe surface, which might seem to be a shade of differ- 
ence from the preceding significations, is sufficiently ex- 
plained by tlie examples adduced. 

" Sophocles, Ajax v. 95, e^aipag el, thou hast well bath- 
ed or SMEARED till/ sword with the Grecian army, viz. by 
plunging it into the Grecian soldiers." 

" .^schylus, Prometh. v. 861, For the wife has deprived 
each husband of life, bathing [^(kipaau) the sword by 
slaughter ; where bathing the sword means, to make it 
reek with blood, by plunging it into human bodies." 

In tlie third example, Aristophanes represents " an 
old comic player of Athens" as "smearing himself 
i^SanTouEi'oc) with frog-colored paints ;" * a poetic expres- 
sion, doubtless, indicating profuseness, and to the reader 
who enters into the spirit of the writer, presenting the 
old comic player as thoroughly besmeared as if he had 
dipped himself into the coloring liquid. 

As illustrating this sixth signification, there is an ex-; 
tract from Dionysius of Halicarnassus,t in which occurs 
a participle not of the word §6L7tTu, but of (5«7rT/^u>. As • 
it is not easy to abbreviate it, I will quote it verbatim. 
" Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Vit. Homeri, p. 297, cited 
by Gale, p. 123, comments on the expression of Homer 
in II. XVI. 333, where the poet represents Ajax as 
killing Cleobulus, and says : He struck him across the 
neck, with his heavy swordj and the whole sword became 
warm with blood. Upon this Dionysius remarks : That 
the sword was so bathed (^SanrKr&ivTo;:) with blood that it 
became heated by it. This is capable of being rendered, 
so dipped in blood; and so Gale renders it, p. 123. But 

* P. 305. t P. 305. 



CLASSICAL USAGE. 10 

if this shade of meaning was designed to he conveyed hy 
Dionysius, would he not have written: ^wmia^ivjog ovxoig 
elg TO uJua lov ^Iqov; x. t. X. ? However I do not consider 
the example as altogether certain, hut adduce it as a 
probable one." 

The passage seems to me attended with no difficulty. 
To a reader who is acquainted with Greek, I cannot 
perform a more acceptable service than by transcribing 
the whole sentence of Dionysius, as quoted by Gale- 
He is commenting on Homer, II. XVI. 333, 

JJccy d'{)7TeOeQuui'd)j ^Iqog uluaii 

And the whole sword was warmed with blood. 
He thus writes ; Huv d' {)nedeQ^udvdT] ^l(fog a2jtiuTi. xut 
yao 8v JOvTO) ■rcaqi-/^^ juel'^opu ejLKpaaiv, w, BuTXTiadivTog ovroi 
ToD ^[(fovg, &g re S-eguavdr]Pui. That is ; ** In this expres- 
sion he exhibits very great emphasis, as much as to say, 
the sword was so dipped, as even to become heated." 
Is the least violence, I ask, done to this passage by con- 
sidering elg TO uiuu as understood after ovtoj ? I need 
scarcely hint, how often writers omit what the mind of 
the reader will naturally and almost necessarily supply. 
Homer had used a very strong expression ; his critical 
commentator, animated with the spirit of the author and 
participating in his feelings, uses another strong expres- 
sion in order to make Homer's thought perfectly ob- 
vious. Let us sympathise with these two writers ; let us 
place ourselves in the situation of a susceptible and feel- 
ing mind, endeavoring to exhibit and to illustrate the 
force of the poet's expression ; and we cannot consider 
it as inappropriate to say, respecting the sword which 
had become heated by the blood of a slaughtered foe, 
that the sword was so dipped it became heated. And 
should the reader stop to think, dipped into what ? how 
instantaneous and irresistible the reply, into the blood, 



20 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

tig TO al/uu. The absence of these words does not mate- 
rially aflfect the sentence ; and the meaning, dipped, is 
not forced, nor inappropriate. Perhaps a more suit- 
able meaning, however, would be that which is furnish- 
ed under the preceding number ; namely, ovei'tvhelmed, 
or overfloioed. The sentence would then stand thus ; 
" the sioord was so overflowed [with blood], as even to be- 
come heated. 

The probability that BaTuiadiviog here shows that 
(ianii'QM [baptizo] means " to smear, to bathe, by the ap- 
plication of liquid to the surface, etc.," is very small. 
Does such a meaning, ascribed to ^uniiQw, cast light 
on Homer's language ? Or was not that word employed 
by the commentator, because in its natural and ordinary 
signification it would suggest to the mind a profusion of 
blood by which the murderous weapon was so envelop- 
ed, that it actually became warm to the hand which was 
wielding it ? 

*' 7. A shade of meaning kindred to the above, viz. to 
wash, i. e. to cleanse by the use of water, is sometimes 
attached to the word Bumo), in the classics." 

"Aristophanes, in Eccles. F'irst they wash [^utttovgi) 
the wool in warm water, according to the old custom. The 
lexicographers Suidas and Phavorinus, interpret the 
word fiujiTouat here by Trkvt'ovai, they wash, or wash out ; 
and Stephens says (ad voc. nlvvo)), that §umb) [bapto] is 
peculiarly spoken of garments, as Aoi'w is of the body, 
and vimot of the hands and feet."* Of course then the 
radical idea of (^uTrojis retained when it signifies to wash; 
and when thus employed, it signifies a washing with 
which dipping was connected. 

Such are the classical meanings of ^(^tttoj [bapto] and 

• P. 305. 



USAGE OF THE SEPT U AGIN T. 21 

^a7TTl':o) [baptizo], as furnished and arranged by Prof. 
Stuart. Every one can see how conformable these 
meanings are to the radical idea of plunffing^ dippings 
soaking. The signification to dye, to color, to tinge (as- 
cribed to S(x7XTbi), may to some appear a departure from 
this radical idea ; but it arises unquestionably from that 
radical idea, inasmuch as articles to be colored are 
dipped into the coloring matter. And after the word 
came to be used in this signification, it was very natural 
that it should be employed to express coloring performed 
in any manner, especially if it was an extensive coloring. 

It is also worthy to be remarked, that of all these 
seven meanings only two are illustrated by passages 
containing the word '^u7tTl':to [baptizo], namely, numbers 
1 and 5. To this remark, number 6 furnishes an ap- 
parent exception, one of whose illustrations contains 
the word ; yet the word in this illustration is not only 
acknowledged to be "capable of being rendered f/j^^/jef/," 
but without doubt it means as much as a copious covering. 

Confining our view then to SicttI'^oj, the following are 
its only meanings as used by classical writers ; 

1. To dip, plunge, or immergc into any thing liquid. 

2. To overwhelm, literally and figuratively. 



SECTION SECOND. 

" Use of ^SuTtTO) and §anTiC,M in the Septuagint and the 
Apocrypha.'''' 

•* 1. The verb (iumo) signifies to plunge, immerse, 
dip in.''^ 

" Lev. 11 : 32, Every vessel [that is unclean], shall he 
PLUNGED [^oKfr^aexai) into water; Heb. K3n, shall be 



22 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

brought or introduced. 4 : 6. And the priest shall dip 
(Sdipsi) his finger into the blood ; Heb. Sdw. 

*' Joshua 3 : 15. The feet of the priests . . . icere dipped 
{e3(x(friaap) into a part of the water of the Jordan ; Heb. 

" Ruth 2 : 14, A7id thou shalt dip (Suipeig) thy morsel 
in vinegar, [ev tcJ o^ei, ]*P.'n3) ; Heb. verb S^^." 

" In like manner ^umiQM [baptizo] takes the same 
signification. 2 K. 5 : 14, And Naaman went down, 
and PLUNGED HIMSELF (ii^uTtTlaaio) scveii times into the 
river Jordan; Heb. h^lD. The prophet Elisha had said: 
lovaat eTTTdytg tv rep 'logduvj], WASH THYSELF seven times 
in the Jordan, 2 K. 5 : 10."* This direction of the 
prophet, Naaman comjjlied witli by repairing to the 
Jordan and dipping himself in it seven times. 

*' 2. To smear over, or moisten by dipping in; in which 
sense I find ^utztco only employed." 

To sustain this meaning, the following passages are 
referred to. "Lev. 4: 17. A?id the priest shall smear 
OVER or MOISTEN [S6.ipei) his finger, urro tov a't/nawg, hy, 
or with the blood of the bullock ; Heb. CD -in jp •* * S^pi. 

" Lev. 14 : 16, And he [the priest] shall smear over 
(.5c<:j//f i) his right finger with the oil, and rov ilulov ; Heb. 

" Ex. 12 : 22, And moistening or smearing it [the 
bundle of hyssop] icith the blood [BuipuvTeg dno tov 
ai>«TOc)." t 

In these several cases, there was doubtless a dipping 
into the blood, and into the oil, even if the idea of 
smearing was intended to be expressed. But the signi- 
fication here ascribed to §&.7iibi, namely, to smear over, is 
not satisfactorily sustained by the examples adduced. 

'^ Pp. 30C, 307. t P. 307. 



USAGE OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 23 

The proper radical meaning, to dip, may Iicre be re- 
tained. The Septuagiiit, in the first two passages, gives 
a literal rendering of the Hebrew expression ; and 
the Hebrew preposition |P, for which the Greek unu 
is here used, is often employed to express a partitive 
meaning; that is, it shows that a part of whatever is 
named was employed. This meaning is rightly express- 
ed in our English version of Lev. 4 : 17, Ajid the priest 
shall dip his finger in some of the blood. 

That the preposition jrp is thus employed, needs not 
be largely proved. Gesenius, in his Hebrew Lexicon, 
observes, " Before jn, we must often supply the word 
some ; Lev. 5 : 9. niDirp some of the blood. Ex. 17 : 5, 
hVi'yif\ 'Jp/IP some of the elders of IsraeV 

Michaelis, in his edition of the Hebrew Bible, has this 
remark on the words nD"nn |p in Lev. 4 : 17 ; "Into a 
part of the blood; literally, some of the blood. ]? is 
often thus used."* 

Augusti and Dc Wette in their German translation of 
the Bible, a translation deservedly held in high estima- 
tion, though they have not given a literal version of the 
passages appealed to by Prof. Stuart, yet felt in no wise 
"constrained" to depart from the radical meaning of 
the verb. Thus, Lev. 4 : 17 they lender, And the priest 
shall DIP his finger into the blood; and 14: 16, And the 
priest shall dip his right finger into the oil.f 

It deserves also to be mentioned that the very same 
act, which is expressed in Lev. 4:17 by the words 
i^^l! j? "'^^Di, is, in verse 6th, expressed by the words 

*In partem BSLUgmnia. 1. aliqvid de sanguine. Sic jc saepc ponitur. 

t Lev. 4 : 17, Und der Priester soil seine Finger in das Blut 
tauchen. 14 : IG, Und der Priester soil seinen rechten Finger in 
das Oel tauchen. 



S4 CHRlSTIANBAPTISM. 

0^5 • • 'h^l^y ; that is, in English, vs. 17, And he shall dip 
. . . into some of the blood, is expressed in vs. 6, thus ; 
And he shall dip . . . into the blood. The only difference 
in the two cases is, the 17th verse expresses more spe- 
cifically (into some, or into apart, of the blood), what the 
6th verse expresses less specifically (into the blood). 

Let lis now apply this principle to the two passages 
adduced. Lev. 4: 17 will then read, as in our English 
version, And the priest shall dip his finger in [into] some, 
or a part, of the blood : 14 : 16 will read* thus, And the 
priest shall dip his right finger into the part of the oil 
that is in his left hand. Thus this principle in the He- 
brew language respecting jp, so repeatedly developing 
itself, is in this manner strictly regarded, and the verb 
retains its proper radical meaning. 

Guided by this examination of Hebrew use, we at once 
see in what manner to render the Greek of the Septua- 
gint. For the Septuagint is, in these verses, literally 
conformed to the Hebrew ; it presents, so to speak, only 
a Hebrew expression in Greek words. The Septuagint 
then is here to be translated not by Greek rules, but 
by Hebrew rules. Indeed, if we should attempt to 
translate the Greek version of these passages according 
to the principles of the Greek language, I apprehend, 
we should find difficulties almost, if not quite, inexj)lica- 
ble ; I apprehend we should search in vain for authorities 
that would warrant the employing of the English word 
bi/ or ioith, as equivalent to tlie Greek una, when connect- 
ed with an active verb like fiunTO). 

The preceding remarks remove all difficulty from the 
third passage, Ex. 12 : 22, m hicli Prof Stuart thus ren- 
ders ; ^^ And MOISTENING or SMEARING it [the bundle of 
hyssop] with the blood (riuij'urrf; u.io tov «7//uro,)." The 
Hebrew has in this passage, n^? uDri'^^P^ ; and the Sep- 



USAGE OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 25 

tuagiiit, if it had correctly and literally rendered this 
passage, would have employed, not ^diipuvtsg (knd toD 
u7a<no:, but rlui/fui-re; el; to uIuu, dipping it into the blood. 
Taking the Scptuagint, however, just as it now stands, 
how shall its language here be rendered ? It is very 
possible, that the Hebrew manuscript which the Greek 
translators employed, varied from our present reading, 
and instead of CJ12 had CD'np ; which would of course 
account for their manner of rendering, and would re- 
quire us to explain their language in the manner that 
has already been exhibited. Without resorting to any 
mere possibility, however, let it be considered, that this 
expression in Exodus is one that occurs frequently in the 
Septuagint; it ought then to be compared with the same 
expression in other places. Now the other places, in 
which it occurs, lead us at once to that frequent Hebrew 
use of I? by which the idea of a partitive is expressed. 
We must then explain this passage in the Septuagint, in 
the same manner as we explain kindred passages. On 
these principles we should be constrained to render this 
passage in Exodus as translated in the Septuagint, in 
the following manner ; Arid dipping it into some, or into 
a part, of the blood; the Greek (j/tto expressing what in 
Hebrew is expressed by jn, that is, the idea of a par- 
titive. 

The result, then, of my remarks on these verses is, 
that the meaning to smear over, even though performed 
by dipping in, is not well supported, and consequently 
ought not to be retained. 

But to proceed to the other alleged meanings of the 
two verbs. 

" 3. To overwhelm; where ^amlto) is used." 

There is only one example of this use; and in this the 
word is employed figuratively. 
3 



26 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

" Is. 21 : 4. My iniquity overwhelms me [id i^unTilei)^ 
where the Hebrew has n;,'.3, to terrify, etc." * 

" 4. Of the sense of tinging or coloring, given to 
|9u-Tro>," there is only one example, and this a doubtful 
one, as " the reading is various and contested." t It is 
Ezek. 23: 15. Some editions of the Septnagint read 
Tidgav ^amal, dyed, or colored turbans; while the Ro- 
man edition reads TTuguSanra, tinctured, colored, varic 
gated icitli colors. 

"5. To wash, cleanse hy icater ; where §ami:^o) is used."| 
To sustain this meaning, two passages are adduced 
from the Apocrypha. " Thus it is said of Judith, in 
c. 12 : 7, that she went out by night, into the valley of 
Bethulia, and washed herself [Ir^uTniieTo) in the camp, 
at the fountain of water." 

"In Sirach, 31 : 25, we find the expression (^unTi';6fi6i'og 
uTTo vEv.Qov^ lie wlio is CLEANSED from a dead [carcase] ajid 
touclieth it again, what does he projit hy his washing [rco 
XovTQ(o avTOv) 1 The phrase ^unri'Qoaevog dcnb vexgov may 
be easily explained, by comparing such passages as are 
to be found in Lev. 11 : 25. 28. 31. 39, 40. Num. 
19 : 18, etc. by which it appears, that a person who had 
touched a dead body was ceremonially defiled, and must 
wash his clothes and his person in order to become 
clean." 

Of these passages, I observe, it is by no means clear 
that the radical meaning of SuTtziCci) [baptizo] ought to 
be left out of sight, so that the word should be trans- 
lated by the general term ivash, or cleanse, without any 
allusion to the specific kind, or extent, of the washing. 
Are there any circumstances which entirely forbid us to 
believe that a bathing" of the whole person is here intcnd- 

* r. 307. 1 r. 307. I P. 308, 



USAGE OF THE A P O C R Y T H A . '21 

ed ? If the circumstances of the two cases clearly 
show without doubt, that an entire bathing was not per- 
formed, or could not be performed, then we must assume 
a modified meaning of the word. 15ut if there be no 
necessity for departing from the radical and ordinary 
meaning, tlien we are not at liberty to i)ut another con- 
struction upon the word. 

Let us examine the passages. The first is Judith, c. 
12 : 7 ; thus expressed in our English version, " She . . . 
went out in the night into the valley of Bethulia and 
washed herself in a fountain of w ater by the camp." In- 
stead of m afuuntaiii of wata\ a more correct translation 
would be at the fountain of water. What hinders us now 
from believing that there was an entire immersion, or 
bathing of her whole person ? Prof. Stuart observes, 
" The example of Judith shows very clearly, that washing 
of the person may be designated by Samiio) ; for into the 
fountain in the midst of the camp, it is not probable that 
she plunged.^''* Perhaps not; but though she did not 
plunge, she might yet have immersed herself. Is plunging 
the only mode in which an immersion can be performed ? 
Besides, the verse correctly rendered, and rendered too 
by Prof. Stuart a few lines preceding this sentence, does 
not assert that the action, whatever it was, was perform- 
ed in the fountain^ but at the fountain^ [tTxl ttj^ ttz/j'tjc). 
There surely may have been conveniencies for bathing 
the whole person " at the fountain," in the immediate 
vicinity of it, and conveniencies which were supplied 
with water from the fountain. If such accommodations 
were not provided for the use of the army, yet it should 
be remembered that there were in the immediate vicinity 
of Bethulia, where the army was encamped, several 

* P. :ius. 



28 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

fountains belonging to the city ; and that the one here 
spoken of, was a peculiarly important one, from which 
"all the inhabitants of Bethulia" obtained their water; 
(c. 7:7. 12 comp. with 13 : 10). Is it unlikely that a 
Jewish city, thus furnished with natural supplies of water, 
would also be furnished at the fountain, or fountains, 
with artificial accommodations for bathing ? Granting, 
however, the probability of this, it may be asked, is it 
probable that a female, a Jewish female, would bathe, 
or immerse herself, " in the midst of the camp" — a camp, 
too, belonging to an army of heathens ? Perhaps not. 
But then it is nowhere, in the book of Judith, inti- 
mated that the action was performed "in the midst of 
the camp." All parts of a camp are not equally ex- 
posed ; and the place to which she resorted seems to 
have been chosen, because, among other reasons, it was 
somewhat retired. She went to that place habitually 
for special prayer and purification ; and the bathing or 
immersion, was a religious service (11 : 17. 12 : 9. 12 : 7. 
13 : 10). The place, though within the precincts of the 
camp, yet might have been far from the midst of it; this 
c. 13: 10, 11, seems clearly to intimate. Besides, this 
religious ceremony was performed in the night ; and she 
was doubtless accompanied by the maid servant whom 
she took with her on her adventurous expedition (10 : 5^ 
10). She is represented as remarkable for her piety 
and her confidence in the divine protection ; and besides, 
Holoferncs, the general of the army, had taken her 
under his special protection, and had given express 
orders that no one should interfere with her movements, 
(12: 6, 7). 

There is nothing, then, in the circumstances of this 
case which forbids us to believe that Judith ditl actually 
immerse, or bathe, her whole person. The ceremony 



UJiAGE OF THE APOCRYPHA. 29 

could be performed with perfect safety, and without any 
sacrifice of delicacy. If the writer intended to convey 
the thought that she did thus immerse herself, the laii 
guage he has employed was adapted to convey thai 
thought. It is certainly, then, the dictate of propriety to 
assign to the word, in this place, its ordinary meaning, 
rather than by the unfounded apprehension of impossi- 
bility or indelicacy, to determine that it cannot have 
that meaning.* 

And why, if it were necessary, may she not have en- 
tered into the water covered with a suitable garment 1 
Maimonides, as quoted by Lightfoot on Matt. 3 : 0, ob- 
serves, '* If any should enter into the water with their 
clothes on, yet their washing holds good ; because the 
water would pass through their clothes, and their gar- 
ments would not hinder it." 

I proceed to the second passage produced to sustain 
the meaning, to wash, to cleanse hy toatcr^ ascribed to 
§u7ni:h) [baptizo] in the Apocrypha. It is Sirach 31 : 25 
[English version, Ecclesiasticus 34 : 25], thus trans- 
lated in the common version, "//e that washeth himself 
after the touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, 
ichat availcth his toashing." In the article under consid- 
eration, it is thus rendered; Me icho is cleansed 



* That Judith did actually bathe herself in the water, was the 
opinion of Spencer, as expressed in his elaborate work on the Ritual 
Laws of the Hebrews. He says : " That the Jews also [i. e. as well 
as the Gentiles] when about to perform their vows, sometimes 
cleansed the whole body in a bath, I gather from the history of 
Judith who, when she had resolved to pray, is said to have bap' 
tized herself in a fountain of icater." De Leg. Heb. Rit. p 789. 
Judaeos etiam,vota facturos, quandoque totum corpus lavacro pur- 
gasse, ex historia Juditha colligo, quse, cum precari statuisset, aquoi 
foTvle seipsam haptizasse dicitur. 

3* 



30 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

[;^(x^Ti'r6uepo^] from a dead [carcase] and toucheth it again, 
what docs lie profit hy his washing 1 

We have now to inquire, whether the washing, the 
cleansing, here spoken of, was of such a kind as clearly 
to show that there was not an immersion, or a total 
bathing, of the person. If there be no satisfactory 
evidence that an entire bathing was not usually per- 
formed on the occasion mentioned in the passage, and 
if, on the other hand, there be only a small proba- 
bility that an entire bathing was performed, we surely 
have not sufficient authority for diverting the word 
^anit'Cu) from its customary meaning, and for refusing to 
it any recognition of the manner, or the extent, of the 
washing. 

Let us see how the case stands. That SuTtTiio), as 
here employed, does not recognize any specification as 
to manner or extent, but that it simply means to wash, 
to cleanse hy water, Prof. Stuart considers clear from the 
directions given in the Mosaic law, respecting those who 
liad contracted defilement by the touch of a dead body."* 
These directions are found in Lev. 11 : 25. 28. 31. 39, 40. 
Num. 19 : 18, 19. The substance of them is, that the de- 
filed person must wash his clothes and himself in order to 
become clean. The texts quoted from Leviticus speak 
only of the washing of the clothes ; the passage from the 
book of Numbers describes all the parts of the ceremony, 
and is therefore to be particularly considered. It stands 
thus in our version ; Num. 19 : IG. 18, 19. And ichosocvcr 
toucheth ...a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, 
shall be unclean seven days. And a clean person shall 
take hyssop, and dip it in the wafer and sj)rinkle it iqwn 
the tent and upon cdl the vessels, and upon the persons that 



i\ 30d. 



I" SAGE OF THE APOCRYPHA. 31 

were there, anrl upon him that touchid a bone, or one slain, 
or one dead, or ci grave : And the clean person shall sprinkle 
upon the unclean on the third daij, and on the seventh day : 
and on the seventh day he shal^ purify himself, and wash his 
clothes, and iiathe himself in water, and shall be clean 
at even. 

Is our version incorrect in saying, he shall bathe him- 
self IN WATER, as the concluding part of the ceremony? 
No. The Hebrew word thus translated (^nn) signifies 
bathing, as well as a less extensive washing. It is used 
in Ex. 2 : 5, where Pharaoh's daughter is said to have 
gone down to the river Nile to wash, that is, to bathe. 
It is also used in reference to cleansing for the leprosy ; 
Lev. 14 : 8, 9, And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his 
clothes, and shave off all his hair, and wash himself in 
WATER, that he may be clean . . . But it shall be on the 
seventh day that he shall shave cdl his hair off his head, and 
his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave 
off; and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall wash his 
FLESH IN WATER, and he shall be clean. That the word 
fiesh, as here employed, is equivalent to body, will not, 
probably, be questioned. Scarcely a doubt can be en- 
tertained, in view of these verses, that the leprous man, 
in whose case there was to be so much particularity, did 
actually bathe his whole person as the concluding part 
of the ceremony by which purification was obtained. 
This same Hebrew word is also used in Lev. 15 : 5 — 18, 
in which verses such cases of uncleanness are mentioned 
as would lead one naturally to expect that an entire 
bathing should be performed. In the 13th verse of this 
15th chapter, it is said, he shall bathe his flesh in run- 
ning water; and in the IGth verse, he shcdl wash [bathe 
yn'^] ALL HIS flesh IN WATER. The history of Naaman, 
the leper, sheds light upon the meaning of this word, 



32 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

when used in reference to cleansing. The prophet (2 K. 
5 : 10 — 14) directed him, go and wash []*nn] in Jordan 
seven times. What did Naaman understand the prophet 
as enjoining in this direction ? Let the 14th verse sjieak. 
Then went he down and dipped himself [^SP'I] seven 
times in Jordan. 

It may here be mentioned that the German transla- 
tion of the Bible by Angiisti and De Wette, employs the 
word hathe in Num. 19 : 19, and in all the other places 
mentioned above in which the same Hebrew word occurs. 
Thus, Ex. 2 : 5, Then came doivn the daughter of Pharaoh 
to BATHE in the stream.* So of the rest. 

An attentive consideration of what has now been 
brought forward will lead, not to a small probability, but 
to say the least, to the highest degree of probability, that 
when in Num. 19 : 19, the person defiled by the touch of 
a dead body is required to wash, or bathe, it was actually 
a bathing that was enjoined, and not a partial washing. 
This conclusion is in perfect accordance with the requi- 
sition that his clothes must be thoroughly washed. If 
his clothes were so defiled by the touch of a dead body 
that they must be thoroughly washed before they could 
be ceremonially clean, is it not likely that his person was 
required to be thoroughly washed ? Consider, also, 
that according to Lev. 11 : 32, if a dead animal should 
fall upon "any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or 
sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, 
it must be put into water ... so it shall be cleansed." 
Was it not then in ])erfect accordance with the Mosaic 
precepts, that the human person defiled by the touch of 
a dead body, should undergo a complete bathing ? 

I add, once more, that the very language of the pas- 

•* Um ini Stromc zu baden. 



USAGE OF THE APOCRYPHA. 33 

sage under consideration coincides with this view. The 
word which is rendered washing in this verse, is more 
specific in sip:nitication than our EngUsh word washings 
and ought rather to be rendered katiiixg. Tlie verb from 
wliich this word is derived, (Aoi'ov), designates a general 
washings or bathing, of the person ; while to express a 
mere partial washing, as of the hands, or face, or feet, 
a different verb [vItitoj) is employed. The difference be- 
tween these two Greek words is happily exemplified in 
the gospel of John, 13 : 10 ; a correct translation of which 
is, He that has been bathed (Aolo), needcth not save to wash 
[rlrtno) his fect, which might have become soiled in walk- 
ing from the bath. By bearing in mind this more specific 
sense of the word rendered washing, that is, bathing, 
the correspondence between the two parts of the verse 
is very conspicuous ; He that has immersed himself in 
order to be cleansed from the defilement occasioned by 
the touch of a dead body, and toucheth it again, what 
availeth his bathing ? 

And here it is suitable to mention what Lightfoot on 
Matt. 3 : 6, produces from Maimonides ; "Wheresoever 
in the law, washing of the body or garments is mention- 
ed, it means nothing else, than the washing of the whole 
body. For if any wash himself all over, except the very 
top of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness." 
Lightfoot, on Mark 7 : 4, produces also from another 
Jewish writer a sentence, which shows that pollution oc- 
casioned by the touch of the dead, was so great that the 
person " must plunge his whole body." 

But enough. My remarks on Sirach 31 : 25 [English 
ver. 34 : 25], I bring to a close by saying, that even if 
the evidence, adduced to show the meaning of this pas- 
sage, did not exist, yet the method by which Prof. Stuart 
would show that Sumi'^o) here means simply to cleanse by 



34 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

water, is liable to objection. For it proceeds on the 
principle, that the Jews in the later periods of their his- 
tory paid a strict regard, in their ceremonies, to what 
Moses had enjoined. But is this true ? Did they not 
adopt a multitude of traditions ; and by some of their 
traditions did they not even transgress the command- 
ments of God ? Even if Moses had not required them, 
in such a case as is mentioned in Sirach, to bathe their 
whole persons, this would not prove, that they did not, 
in subsequent ages, add to his requisitions on this point, 
as they did on other points. We may in truth say, that 
even if Moses did not intend there should be a total ab- 
lution in the case adduced, the word Samli^oi employed 
to express this ablution in subsequent times, might still 
retain its radical power, and might indicate what addi- 
tion the later Jews made to the original law. This 
word, I say, might still be purposely used in its radical 
signification ; and instead of the law of Moses modifying 
its meaning, it might show how the Jews modified the 
law. We might stand on such ground, and be sustained 
by the Jewish history. But in the present case, there is 
no need of taking this ground ; for I trust, the evidence 
here produced is not only abundant, but is also appro- 
priate and sufficient to show, that in the earlier periods 
of the Jewish history, Moses was understood as requir- 
ing those, who had become defiled by the touch of a 
dead body, to bathe their persons as the concluding 
ceremony of the purification. 

1 cannot then regard the statement as sufficiently sus- 
tained, that SuTiriio) in the Septuagint and the Apocry- 
pha means simply to wash, to cleanse hy ipatrr, without 
containing any reference to the manner, or the extent of 
the washing. The proofs that it has such a meaning- 
are inadequate. The instances produced furni.^h no 



ii 



USAGE OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 35 

satisfactory reason lor tlius abandoning the radical 
meaning of the word. They may be adduced to show 
that du7iTi:oi has tlie meaning to wash, or cleanse, by bath- 
ing in water. 

I have thus arrived at the last meaning alleged in this 
section. 

" 6. To moisten, wet, bedew ; where (iumM is used." 

" Thus in Dan. 4 : 30 [Eng. version 4 : 33], it is said, 
that Nebuchadnezzar was driven from among men, and 
made to eat grass like the ox, and that his body was 
MOISTENED, WET [iHuqi]) with the deio of heaven. 

"Dan. 5:21, His body was moistened [iSdffTj) with 
the dew of heaven.^''* 

The Chaldee word, to w^hich (^ctrrrw corresponds in 
these passages, means "like the Greek §u7no), both to dip 
and to tinge or color.^^f The Greek word then is a fair 
representative of the Chaldee ; and any remarks to be 
made upon it require no special modification on account 
of its beinor a translation of an orio^inal. 

Is the English word moisten or ivet, or bedew, an ade- 
quate representative of the Greek word? The circum- 
stances of the case may furnish a reply to this question. 
They show how very extensive was this moistening or 
wetting; and how very appropriately the word j^a.-rrw is 
used in these places. For Nebuchadnezzar had been, 
for nights in succession, till seve7i times had passed over 
him, COVERED with dew ; he had been, as it were, wet all 
over with it ; as we say in familiar conversation, he had 
been icithoiit a dry spot. Driven from human habitations, 
and dwelling with the beasts of the field, till his hairs 
were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' 
claws, thus abiding in the open air all night, exposed to 



P. 308. t P. 30a. 



36 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

the copious dews of an oriental climate, and destitute of 
clothing, what could be more natural than to speak of 
him as having been immersed in, or covered with, the 
dew of heaven ? In relating so signal, so unusual an 
event, the word, formed from a root whose " leading 
and original meaning" is '•'■ dipping, plunging, immerging, 
soaking, or drenching, in some liquid substance," would 
readily present itself to the writer's mind ; nor with the 
full knowledge of its proper meaning, would he have 
any doubt that every reader would rightly understand it. 
The Scriptures are not " coldly correct and critically 
dull ;" the language of common life breathes through all 
their pages. And who, I ask, in relating this singular 
event, or narrating it with his pen, would hesitate a mo- 
ment to say, the unhappy monarch was drenched with 
the dew of heaven? And what critic in commenting 
upon this expression, would be thought to have done 
justice to it, by saying, the word drench means to moisten, 
or bedeiv, or loet ? To say that the word ^(xnuo in the 
passages produced from Daniel, is only equivalent to 
moisten, or hedeiv, or zvet, seems to me an error some- 
what akin to his, who should say that in this passage of 
Milton, 

A cold shuddering dew 

Dips me all o'er,* 

the word dips is adequately explained by ascribing to it 
the meaning to moisten. And though a dictionary should 
mention the word moisten or hcdcic, as one of the mean- 
ings of the verb dip, on account of this passage of Mil- 
ton, yet who would feel that the word was properly ex- 
plained, or that the passage was properly explained 



Comus. 



USAGE OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 37 

without a reference to the prim.-uy, original meaning of 
the word dip 1 

I consider, then, the word ^u-iroi as liyperhohcally 
used in the hook of Daniel; and as naturally suggested 
hy the circumstance, that the whole surface of Nebu- 
chadnezzar's body was exposed to the dew, and became 
covered with it ; so that much the same effect was pro- 
duced, as if his body had been immersed in it. These 
passages are easily explained without ascribing to Sunrot 
the meaning ^0 moisten; and therefore they do not require 
this additional item in the significations of the word. 

A summary of the results to which the examination 
in this section conducts, may be thus expressed : 

Of the six meanings ascribed, by Prof. Stuart, to 
SCirtTO) and SutttIjo in the Septuagint and the Apocrypha, 
no dependence can be placed on number 4, because the 
example produced is a doubtful one ; number 2 is in- 
correct, as it arises from not sufficiently regarding the 
Hebrew construction; number 6 is inapplicable, as it 
merely exhibits a hyperbolical use of the word ; number 
5 is defective, as no good reason can be produc- 
ed to show that the washing, the cleansing, was not 
performed by a total bathing of the person, and good 
reasons can be produced to show, that an entire bathing 
was performed. The remaining significations, number 
1, to plunge, immerse, dip in, and number 3, to ovenchelm, 
are unquestionable. 

Of these six meanings, three are illustrated by passa- 
ges containing the word :;i(i7rrl':o)'^ namely; 1, to plunge, 
immerse, dip in ; 3, to overichelm ; 5, to wash, cleanse hy 
water. To this fifth mc:aning there should have been 
annexed, according to the preceding examination, a no- 
tice that the washing, or cleansing, was performed by 
a bathing or an immersing, of the person. 
4 



38 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

The meanings, then, of (ianjilM in the Septuagint and 
the Apocrypha, may be thus stated ; 

1. To plunge^ immerse, dip in. 

2. To overwhelm. 

3. To wash, or cleanse, hy bathing the person in water. 



SECTION THIRD. 

** Meaning of the words ^dntM, BamiCM, and their deriv- 
atives in the New Testament, tohen not applied to the 
rite of Baptism.'''' 

Two meanings are here ascribed to ^(xtttcd; 1, *^to 
dip;''^ as in Luke 16:24, That he may dip {S<xyjn) the 
tip of his finger in water ; John 13 : 26, It is he to whom 
I shall give the morsel or crumh [Eng. ver. a sop] when I 
have DIPPED it [Sdipug). 

If in the first of these verses, the rendering wet should 
be preferred to dip, because vdarog [water] is in the Geni- 
tive and may be considered " the Genitive of instru- 
ment,"* there still can be no doubt that the action men- 
tioned was to be performed by dipping. 

2. The second meaning is " ^o f/?/e;"* as in "Rev. 
19 : 13, a garment dyed [Se^ia/ufih'ox') in blood,'^ [Eng. ver. 
a vesture dipped in blood]. 

This word [B&mw, bapto) is not used in the New Tes- 
tament with reference to baptism ; nor do any of its de- 
rivatives occur. We may pass then at once to the other 
word, (iomjllM [baptizo]. 

1. The first meaning wliich tlie article under consid- 
eration ascribes to BanilCo) in the New Testament, when 

* P. 301). 



GENERAL USAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 39 

not used with reference to tlic rite of Baptism, is " to 
wash, in the literal sense."* 

The followiiij^ passajres are prodiicetl as illustrations 
of this meaning. " Mark 7 : 3, 4, T/if P/ian\^irs [return- 
ing]from the market eat not, except they wash themselves, 
^unrlifon'Tui, Mid. voice." 

"Luke 11 : 38, But the Pharisee, seeing him, wondered 
that he had ?iot Jirst washed himself [kSurcriuOi,) before 
dinner. '"^ * 

No comment is furnished o« these passages in the ar- 
ticle we are considering; and yet something more might 
have been justly expected, than the simple assertion, 
that the word here means to wash, I proceed to examine 
the passages. 

Mark 7 : 3, 4. It is to be regretted that the third verse 
was not produced by Prof. Stuart, as well as the part of 
the fourth which contains the word under examination. 
The whole passage, as expressed in the common version, 
is the following : For the Pharisees and all the Jews^ ex- 
cept they wash their hands oft, cat not, holding the tradition 
of the elders : And when they come from the market, ex- 
cept they wash, they eat not. Here are mentioned two 
instances of washing (so called) ; the first, a matter 
of constant occurrence; the second, an observance per- 
formed after returning from the market. The inquiry 
is a very natural one, did these two washings differ from 
one another in any respect 1 To this inquiry, an affirm- 
ative answer can scarcely be avoided. For, in the first 
place, one was a washing which commonly occurred 
before a meal, without regard to the employment that 
had preceded it; so that even if a person had remained 
at home, still before taking his meal, he would wash his 

* P. 300. 



40 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

hands. The other was a ceremony, performed after 
having been exposed to the various occasions of defile- 
ment which would be connected with his attendance at 
market. Such was the variety of persons and things 
with which he might have come in contact, that a more 
formal and thorough ablution would naturally be per- 
formed. 

In examining the whole passage, especially in the orig- 
inal, an attentive reader will perceive an advance in the 
thought. There is presented, at first, the general cus- 
tom, and then a specific case, namely, after returning 
from the market. If in common, the hands were washed 
before eating, the reader is prepared to hear that, after 
returning from a mixed crowd of people, something dif- 
ferent from, or additional to, this washing, was performed. 
An English reader might overlook this, on account of the 
repetition of the word w^ash in the fourth verse ; although 
I cannot but think he would, if attentive, be sensible of 
some deficiency in the representation, unless he should 
conclude from the repeated use of the same word icash, 
that his expectation of a more formal and thorough 
ceremony after returning from market, was an incorrect 
one. But to a careful reader of the Greek, no such 
sense of deficiency arises, and no such disappointment 
occurs. For, as further showing that there was a dif- 
ference between the two instances of washing, I observe, 

In the second place, two different Greek words are 
employed to express the washing in the two diff'erent 
cases. In the third verse we read iui' /n) I'tiftoijai ; while 
in the fourth, we read ^<xr /nf] fiiCTTldon'Tui. These two 
words well correspond to the circumstances of the two 
cases; and rendered according to their proper mean- 
ing, clearly exhibit the advance in the thought. To 
make this matter plnin to a mere English reader, I 



GENERAL USAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 41 

observe, there is a difference between these two verses 
in the original, like what would be felt if they were 
thus translated: For the Pharisrrs and all tin Jews, except 
they WASH their hands oft, eat not; And when they come 
from the market^ except they bathe, t?iey eat not. 

To proceed. Since now there is a plain difference 
between these two cases of washing, as suggested both 
by the occasions and by the different verbs employed in 
the original, what was the precise difference between 
them ? Was it that, on common occasions, they washed 
their hands only; while on the occasion of returning from 
the market, they immersed, or bathed, their whole per- 
sons ? So thought Vatablus, a distinguished professor 
of Hebrew at Paris, for whom the Jews of his acquain- 
tance, entertained a very high regard. "They bathed," 
he says, on Mark 7 : 4, "their whole persons."* So 
thought Grotius, who says on Mark 7:4," They cleans- 
ed themselves more carefully from defilement contracted 
at the market, to wit, by not only washing their hands, 
but even by immersing their body."t In conformity 
with this, may the passage in Mark be rendered without 
the least violence to its language. In conformity with 
this, too, were the conveniencies among the Jews ; ac- 
commodations for frequent ablution were every where 
ready.}: Nor with their mode of dress, would the prac- 
tice be so cumbersome as it would be amonff us. 



* Se totos abluebant. 

t Majori cura se purgabant a fori contactu, quippe non manus 
tantum lavando, sed et corpus mersando. 

t Spencer de Legibus Hebraeorum Ritualibus : p. 785. Ne quid 
itaque deesset quod purificationis tam frequentis ratio postulavit, 
Judaei fluvios, lacus, piscinas, et fontes passim obvios habebant, 
quibus munditiae operam daturi abluebantur. 

4* 



42 C H R I S T I A N B A P T I S M. 

That some of the stricter sort, that many, enough to 
justify tlie Evang^elist's general expression, did practise 
total ablution on the occasion mentioned, is altogether 
credible. Kuinoel, however, in his commentary, as- 
serts that the existence of such a custom among the 
Pharisees, is not sustained by sufficient arguments.* In 
the absence of clear, satisfying proof, it is not becoming 
to make any positive assertions. However striking the 
language of Mark may, by some, be considered, as re- 
cognizing such a ])ractice (and the language is certainly 
coincident with such a practice, especially when we look 
at it by the investigations respecting Banrico) on the pre- 
ceding pages), yet I am not disposed to urge it. But as- 
suming the ground, that the evangelist did not intend to 
distinguish a total bathing from a partial washing, I 
again inquire, did he distinguish one sort of partial wash- 
ing from another sort of partial washing, one of which 
sorts was performed by the dipping of the hands into 
water, and thus was properly expressed by the peculiar 
term [ria7TTi';o))wh\ch he has employed ? If so, this word 
is here used in its radical, proper meaning; and conse- 
quently, examined in its connexion, is so far from requir- 
ing, or justifying. Prof. Stuart's view of its meaning, that 
it is a decisive instance against his view. 

I have already said, that the word (SuTulaon-Tai) in this 
passage, may, without any violence, be considered as dis- 
tinguishing a total immersion from a washing of the 
hands. I am by no means satisfied, however, that this 
is a necessary view of the passage. The verb is in the 
middle voice ; and as there is no object expressed after 
it, it would be lawful in order to express the Greek, to 
employ, as Prof. Stuart has, the word themselves as 



* On Mark 



GENERAL USAGE OK THE N E \V T E S T A M E N T. 43 

being contained in the verb itself; so that tlic transla- 
tion would be, " cxrept thnj iinmrrsr or hnthe t/icmsclvrs.^^ 
Still as tiie verb [tltfrni'iat) ia tlie former part of tlie 
passage, lias, in the middle voice, an object (yjinn;, 
hands) after it, it is certainly justifiable, though not 
necessary, to maintain that the verb in the latter part of 
the passage {-fanTlmoi'Tut) has the same word understood 
after it, for its object. The passage would then read, 
The Pharisees ... except they icash their hands oft, eat not 

and when they come from the market, except they 

IMMERSE, or BATHE, their hands, they eat not. The am- 
biguity in the Greek is much the same as there is in the 
following English sentence ; The Pharisees . . . except they 
wash their hands oft, eat not . — and lohen they come from 
the market, except they bathe, they eat not. The word 
hands may be considered as understood after the word 
bathe, or the word themselves may be understood. The 
illustration is not a complete one, because we are not 
in the habit of distinguishing between different modes 
of washing the hands. 

I proceed now to the inquiry, whether there were two 
sorts of washing of the hands, and what was the distinc- 
tion between them. The following quotations exhibit 
all that I have to offer ; and I present them the more 
readily, as they are selected from Pedobaptist writers. 

Jahn in his Biblical Archaeology, § 3"20, makes the 
fiillowing statement. " The washing of hands before 
meals (a custom, which originated from the practice of 
conveying food to the mouth in the fingers), was eventu- 
ally made a religious duty; on the ground that, if any 
one, tiiough unconscious of the circumstance at the time, 
had tcjuched any thing, whatever it might be, which was 
unclean, and remained unwashed, when he ate, he there- 
by communicated the contamination to the food also. 



44 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

The Pharisees judged the omission of this ablution to 
be a crime of equal magnitude with fornication, and 
worthy of death. 

*' They taught that, if a person had not departed from 
the house, the hands, without the fingers being distend- 
ed, sliould be wet with water poured over them, and 
then elevated so that the water might flow down to the 
elbows ; furthermore, the water was to be poured a sec- 
ond time over the arms, in order that, (the hands being 
held down), it might flow over the fingers. This prac- 
tice is alluded to in Mark 7 : 3, luv /jri TTvyftyf rdpojyrai^^ 
[except they wash their hands] " and is denominated by 
the Rabbins hlQi. See Buxtorf's Chaldaic, Talmudic, 
and Rabbinic Lexicon, col. 1335. On the contrary, 
those who had departed from the house, washed in a 
bath, or, at least, immersed their hands in water with the 
fingers distended. The ceremony in this case (Mark 
7 : 4) is denominated tap /uri ^amlatovTixi,^^ [except they 
immerse, or bathe], "and by the Rabbins Sdm. See Bux- 
torf's Lexicon, col. 849." 

Dr. G. Campbell, on Mark 7 : 3, 4, says ; " For illustrat- 
ing this passage, let it be observed, 1st, that the two verbs, 
rendered wash in the English translation, are different 
in the original. The first is rli/noi'Tai, properly translat- 
ed wash; the second is ^uTniaMviui, which limits us to a 
particular mode of washing ; for (iami^M denotes to 
plunge, to dip.^^ After quoting with approbation the 
following remark of Wetstein's, " ^amiteadui est m'anus 
aquae immergere, vimiaOia manibus aff*undere" [i. e. 
^u7tTi'c,eudui is, to immerse the hands in water, riTXTevSai, to 
pour water on the hands] he proceeds ; " This is more 
especially the import, when the words are, as here, op- 
posed to each other. Otherwise rlrrTFir, like the general 
word to wash in Enghsh may be used for /?«7rr/,'f<r, to 



GENERAL USAGE OF THE N E W T E S TA M E N T. 45 

dip, because the genus compreliends the species ; but not 
conversely {iu7XTt';etv for vmreiy, the species for the genus. 
By this interpretation, the words, wliicli, as rendered in 
the common version, are unmeaning, appear botli sig- 
niticant and emphatical ; and the contrast in tlie Greek 
is j)reserved in the translation." Accordingly, Dr. 
Campbell translates the passage thus ; " F'or the Phari- 
sees .... eat not until they have washed their hands, 'hy 
pouring a little jvatcr upon than; and if they be come from 
the market^ hy dipping themy 

Rosenmuller, in his notes on this passage, speaks of 
two modes of washing the hands, namely, immersion of 
the hands in water, and, when one hand is washed by 
the other.* 

Kuinoel also speaking of the opinion entertained by 
some, that a total ablution was performed in case of re- 
turning from the market, says, " But an immersion of 
the hands, duly performed, would have abundantly suf- 
ficed for this end," t that is, for purification from con- 
tact with the multitude. 

Spencer, on the Ritual Laws of the Hebrews, speaks 
thus ; " Some of the Jews ambitious for the credit of 
superior purity, frequently immersed their whole persons 
in water ; the greater part, however, following a milder 
discipline, frequently washed only their hands, when 
they were about to take food. That the greater part, 
and especially the Pharisees, attended to this rite pri- 
vately at home, and considered it a very important part 
of religion, is sufficiently evident from Mark 7 : 3, 4. 
Hence it was that stone vessels for water [water pots, 
John 2 : 6] were provided in every house of the Hebrews; 

* Immersio manuum in aquam, et quum una manus abluitur 
altera. 

t On Mark 7 : 4. 



46 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

SO that all, when about to take food, might perform the 
frequent washings according to the discipline of the 
Pharisees. These vessels were very suitable for per- 
forming these daily purifications of the Jews ; for it was 
customary among the Jews, sometimes to wash the 
hands by water poured upon them ; at other times, to im- 
merse the hands in water up to the wrist. The former 
mode of washing they expressed by ^7^^, the latter by 

From Lightfoot I gather the following. On Mark 
7 : 4, he says, " The Jews used to^l nVwJ ' the washing 
of hands,' and tZD'.'iV ^^-^^ 'the plunging of the hands.' 
And the word vli^'btPTcu ' wash,' in our evangelist seems 
to answer to the former, — and BanTlacovTat, ' baptize' to 
the latter." ..." Those that remain at home, eat not, 
. . . ' unless they wash the fist.' But those that come 
from the market eat not, . . . ' unless they plunge their 
fist into the water,' being ignorant and uncertain, what 
uncleanness they came near unto in the market." Then 
follows an extract from the Jewish writer Maimonides, 



* E Judseis nonnuUi^ puritatis accuratioris laudem ambientes,se 
lotos in aquas frequenter immergebant : plerique vero, disciplina 
mitiore usi, manus tantum, cum cibum capturi essent, frequenter 
abluebant. Hunc ritum plerosque omnes, Pharisoeos inprimis, 
donii suoD privatini exercuisse, eumque in proecipua rcligionis partt 
posuisse, satis e S. Marci verbis [7 : 3, 4.] cognoscatur. Hinc 
factum est, quod vSqUu Xloirui (quarum meminit Evangelista) per 
singulas Hebraeorum sedes disponerentur, quod scilicet omnes ci- 
bum sumpturi lavacris frequentibus e disciplina Pliarisaeorum uter- 
entur. Erant autem haec vasa ad quotidianas hasce Judagorum 
purificationes peragendas maxime accomniodata : nam Judaeis so- 
lenne erat, nunc /f oi'/nrf ti', aqua affusa manus abluere, nunc 
puTiT^fit'j manus carpo tenus aquis emergere [imrnergere] ; et 
lolionem priorem per St33, postcriorem per S 3D cxprimebant. 
Spencer de Leg. Heb. Rit. p. 1175. 



GENERAL l^ S A G E O F T H E N E W T E S TA M E N T. 47 

mentioning; tlic quantity of water which was required 
for the ceremony of phtngiufr the hands, viz. "a fit 
place ; that is, where tliere was a confluence of forty 
seahs of water ;" while for the tcashing merely, such ex- 
actness was not demanded. " The phrase therefore," 
Lightfoot adds, " seems to be meant of tiie ' immersion, 
or phinging, of the hands only.' " But, I remark, though 
it were only the hands that were plunged, yet the mean- 
ing of (9arrr/>j is sufficiently obvious. 

The observances here mentioned have been handed 
down among the Jews from age to age ; and it is im- 
possible to fix the precise point in their history at which 
they commenced. Certain it is, they shed light on such 
passages as the one under consideration ; and could as 
appropriate illustrations be produced, in respect to many 
other passages of Scripture, on various topics, the Chris- 
tian world would feel itself under great obligations. 

The preceding copious examination helps us, of 
course, rightly to understand the quotation from Luke 
11 : 38, which is next brought forward to sustain the 
meaning to wash, ascribed to Sc(7ttI':o) ; But the Pharisee, 
seeing him, wondered that he had notjirst washed himself 
{iSunriod I/) before dinner: Common version; And when 
the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not Jirst 
washed before dinner ; that he had not first immersed, that 
is, himself, or his hands. By the preceding part of the 
chapter it appears, tliat our Lord and his host had been 
exposed to a great mixture of company, and therefore 
needed, in the judgment of the Pharisee, the more for- 
mal and thorough sort of washing". On this passage too, 
Lightfoot observes, *' there is nD^V ri'^'t^A ' n washing of 
the hands,' and there is a;!; i^^'^P a ' dipping of the 
hands.' This clause we are upon, refers to this latter. 
The Pharisee wonders, that Christ had not washed his 



48 CHRISTIAN BAPTIS3f. 

hands ; nay, that he had not dipped them all over in the 
water, when he was newly come, i^ ayoq<tQ, that is, 
^x T(bv oxhop i7Ta&got'C,o/iiei>o)r, \er. 29, from the people that 
were gathered thick together^ 

To sustain the meaning to wash., three other passages 
are produced, by Prof. Stuart, which contain the sub- 
stantive derived from the verb SunrltM. 

*' 3Iark 7 : 4, The washings {(ianjiufwvg ) of cups and 
potSf and brazen vessels, and couches [xXivo)i'). 

♦* Mark 7 : 8, The washings {[SuTrTiGjuovg) of pots and 
cups. 

" Heb. 9 : 10, Onlt/ in meats and drinks, and divers 

washings {^UTlTKJiJOlgy^* 

That the word rendered washings in these passages 
ought, so far as philology is concerned, to be rendered 
IMMERSIONS, would be a plain inference from the pre- 
ceding investigations. And even though a difficulty 
should seem to arise from the nature of some of the 
things mentioned by Mark, we ought, before we decide 
that the word must have another meaning, to inquire 
whether the supposed difficulties really existed in prac- 
tice among the Jews. It is by no means satisfactory to 
refer to customs among ourselves, as suggesting difficul- 
ties in respect to what the Jews are said to have done, 
and especially, what they are said to have done by the 
influence of a misguided religious scrupulosity ; for it 
was from religious, though mistaken, considerations, 
that they practised these observances. Nor were such 
observances entirely without foundation in the statutes 
of Moses. In Lev. 11 : 32, it is directed, that any ves- 
sel upon whicli tlic dead body of an unclean animal had 
fallen, "whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is 

* F. 310. 



G E N E R A I. i: S A (; E () F T HE N E \V T E S T A M E N T. 49 

done, it must be put into watcr.,^'' in order to he cleansed. 
The only exception was in respect to eartlien vessels, 
which, being thus polluted, were to be l)roken in pieces 
{v. 315). Now, how credible it is, and how accordant 
with the language of Mark, that the superstitious spirit 
of the Jews, in subsecpient times, extended this requisition 
to other cases besides that of pollution by the touch of 
the dead ; so that even on ordinary occasions, when they 
thought religion required the articles to be cleansed, 
the cleansing must bo performed by immersing them in 
water. 

And who can wonder, if this same spirit" led them 
carefully to cleanse by immersion even the couches on 
which they reclined at meals 1 for it is these, probably, 
which are meant by the word translated tables in our 
version. It would certainly accord well with their su- 
perstitious disposition. And so far as the writings of dis- 
tinguished men among the Jews enable us to form a judg- 
ment, those writings contribute altogether to the belief, 
that there was actually performed an immersion of these 
articles, when they needed special purifying. The Jew- 
ish rules, which Dr. Gill quotes in his commentary on 
Mark 7 : 4, are precise in requiring such articles to be 
cleansed by being covered in water ; and the regulations 
are exceedingly strict in regard to this washing, so that 
should there be any thing adhering to these articles, such 
as pitch, Avhich might prevent the water from touching 
the wood in a particular spot, the washing would not 
be duly performed. The same Jewish authority re- 
quires even beds to be cleansed by immersion, when they 
had become defiled. 

And what should hinder us from employing the word 
immersions in Heb. 10: 9? Immersions were practised 
by the Jews in accordance with the Mosaic ritual ; and 
5 



50 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

why may we not consider the apostle, when naming the 
immersions, as taking a part, for the whole, of the legal 
purifications, and consequently as not departing from the 
specific, original meaning of the word he has employed? 

2. The second meaning ascribed, in this section, to 
the verb ^anriCM and to the noun derived from it, is a 
figurative meaning, " which deserves a particular con- 
sideration." * 

The following passages are adduced as illustrating 
this meaning. " Luke 12 : 50, / have a baptism to he 
baptized loith, and how am I straitened until it be accom- 
plished! That is, I am about to be overwhelmed with 
sufi*erings, and I am greatly distressed with the prospect 
of them."* Here the proper, radical meaning of the 
word is sufficiently developed. 

So in " Mark 10 : 3S, 39, Are ye able to drink of the 
cup that 1 must drink, and to be baptized ivith the baptisin 
with ichich I am baptized? .... The sense is evidently 
the same as that given above, viz. ' Can ye indeed take 
upon you to undergo, patiently and submissively, suffer- 
ings like to mine — sufi*erings of an overwhelming and 
dreadful nature?'"* 

Another example of this figurative meaning. Prof. 
Stuart finds in 1 Cor. 15 : 29. Else lohat shall they do 
who are baptized /or the dead? That is (though a dif- 
ferent interpretation of the passage may be defended), 
"if there be, as some affirm, no resurrection to life, then 
what becomes of all our multiplied toils and sufferings, 
which we undergo with reference to a future state and 
to that world unto which the dead go? Of wlmt avail 
is it to endure overwhelming sorrows, if there be no re- 
surrection of the dead ?'** 

* P. 310. 



GENERAL USAGE OF THE N E W T i: S T A M 1-: N T. 51 

♦' 3. Tliere is ixnoxher Jiguratiiic use of ,>«. if /,'(.», allied 
in some respects to the precedino^ one, but distinguished 
from it in tlie mode of its application. I mean that 
usage of the word, wliieh emphns it to designate the idea 
of copious affusion or effusion, in a figurative manner. The 
basis of this usage is very plainly to be found in the de- 
signation by 3u7iTi;o) of tiie idea of overwhelming, i. e. of 
surrounding on all sides with fluid." 

" Matt. 3 : 11. He shall baptize {^u7tTlaet)i/ou with the 
Holy Ghost and with fire ; i. e. he will make a copious 
effusion of his Spirit upon a part of you ; and another 
part, viz. the finally unbelieving and impenitent, he will 
surround with flames, or plunge into the flames."* 

Examples of the same meaning are Luke 3 : 16; Mark 
1:8; John 1 : 33; Acts 1 : 5; 11 : 17. By the lan- 
guage of these passages, especially as fully expressed in 
Matt. 3 : 11, and explained in Matt. 3 : 12, it is perfectly 
obvious how naturally and forcibly f?«7TrCo> [baptizo] ex- 
presses the idea of overwhelming, of surrounding. He 
will baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire ; that 
is, some of you he will surround with the Holy Spirit's 
influences ; and some of you, the unbelieving and im- 
penitent, he will surround with flames. That such is 
the meaning of the passage, is plain from the 12th verse 
of the same chapter ; and with this meaning the other 
passages agree, in which baptizing with the Holy Spirit 
is mentioned. The explanation which refers the bap- 
tizing with fire to the descent of the Holy Spirit on the 
day of Pentecost, and which Prof. Stuart hints at as 
^'' perhaps^^* being the right one, does not sufficiently re- 
gard the subsequent explanatory verse. 

A passage very similar to those we are now consider- 

*P. 31]. 



52 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

ing is " 1 Cor. 12 : 13. For hy one Spirit have we been 
baptized into one body ; i. e. by the copious efltusion of 
one and the same Spirit, have we been made members 
of one and the same church."* In other words, The 
same Spirit has baptized us all, so that we have all been 
made members of the same body ; that is, we have all 
most copiously participated in the same Spirit's influ- 
ences ; an idea very naturally flowing from the radical 
meaning of ;-^«rrr/>.f 

I cannot but remark here, how strongly these figura- 
tive uses of the word SutxtI'Zl'), especially in Luke 12 : 50, 
and Matt. 3:11, show what was the prevalent and pop- 
ular meaning of the Avord — the meaning, which would 
first occur to a reader or hearer. If the word baptize in 
Greek corresponded, as to its prevalent and popular mean- 
ii]g, with our woi'diphmge, or immcrse^Xhen the expressions 
in the above-named passages can be adequately explained. 
15ut if the word baptize in Greek, in its common and 
])revalent meaning, was equivalent to the English word 
?^«.?/i without having annexed to it any notion of manner 
or copiousness, or if it meant tcash as really and as fre- 
(juently as it meant plunge, then such a figurative use 
would have been unnatural. 

The examination of passages produced in this third 
section has led to the result, that the word [^urtrr:oi, as 



* P. 312. 

t In such passages, roforence is made to the fihundnnt communi- 
cations of the Spirit ; an idea very happily conveyed by the use of 
the word baptize. The manner of the communication is not regard- 
ed ; only the copiousness. As I shall not have occasion to recur to 
this class of passages, I will now observe, though it is not altogeth- 
er in place, that hence, so far as the tidminiatration is concerned, 
no argument can be drawn against immersion as being the only 
baptism, from the fact that the Spirit is elsewhere said to be pour- 
ed out. 



SU.MMAUV (IK MKANINr. S. ;>.» 

used in the New Tcstanicnt witliout reference to llic 
rite of I)aj)tisni, does not depart from its prevalent niean- 
in«r- Its si<(nifications, as thus nsed, are tlic followinir: 

1. To r/r((nsr bif iin)ii(rsin<r, or batliiiiir^ in waUr, 

'J5. To ovmrhrfi/i, to surround, ii<riiratively. 

As the idea of imnicrsbfg, nvcrwhdinins;, surrouinJini^, is 
naturally connected with the idea of roju'ousncss, a third 
sianification may liere he introduced; namely, as ex- 
pressini^ 

3. 3fost copious participation. 

In exhihiting- tlie meanings of the uord, however, this 
third signification may, without any impropriety, be dis- 
pensed with, as it savors too much of minute refining 
upon the meaning of popular language. 

I have now examined the sections which may be con- 
sidered as preliminary to " the main question." Let me 
bring together the results and present them in one view, 
restricting this view, as well T may, to the word ^^'inrCio* 
[baptizo]. 

Combining, then, the meanings of this word, as used, 
1st, in the Greek classic writers ; 2dly, in the Septua- 
gint and the Apocrypha ; :3dly, in the New Testament 
without reference to the rite of baptism, I thus present 
them : 

1. To dip, plunge, inuncrgf [ininiersc], dip in. 

2. To wash, or cleanse, by bathing, or dipping, in 
water, 

3. To ovcnvhehn, to surround. 

By the aid of these results, it is easy to trace some 
important resemblances between the Greek word baptize 
and our English word immerse, dip or plunge. The English 
word jjlunge or dip, has its own specific meaning, dis- 
tinguishing it from other words which might be employ- 
ed with reference to a liquid substance ; so with the 
5* 



54 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Greek word. Tlie English word dtp may refer to the 
dipping of the wJtole person or thing, or to the dipping of 
a part of tlie person or thing, as the connection requires, 
while yet the distinctive meaning of the word remains; so 
with the Greek word. As a person, or thing, that has 
])een dipped in wcdtr^ may very properly he said to have 
been ivashcd in ivater or washed with water^ while yet 
no one concludes from this, that the words dip and wash 
are synonymous and interchangeable; so in Greek, a 
person or tiling haptizcd may be truly said to be washed, 
and yet the word toash is not an adequate representation 
of the word baptize. As in Enghsh we speak of a per- 
son hiiving plunged i7ito pleasure, being plunged into calam- 
iti/, plunged into debt ; so in Greek, similar figurative uses 
of the word baptize are employed ; and in both languages, 
the proper explanation of the term is drawn from its 
radical meaning. This same English word, j^^ww^c or dip, 
so perfectly well understood in popular intercourse, 
might, if investigated by a foreigner on the same princi- 
ples, and in the same manner, which have been appUed to 
the investigation of the Greek word baptize, be repre- 
sented to be quite as indefinite and quite as dubious in 
meaning, as the Greek word is by some moderns repre- 
sented. 



SECTION FOURTH. 

*' Do SunrCQut and its derivatives, ichen applied to designate 
the RITE OF BAPTISM, jieeessarili/ imphj that this rite was 
performed by immersion of the whole person ? " 

Under this general question, the article m hich we are 
considering proposes several particular inquiries. 



U S A (J E OF T H E N E W T E S TA M K N T. OO 

§ 1. " Mliat <\n tht proper force and :;igiiiJi(ation of the 
word, according to the general usage of language ? " 

Tlie following paragraph contains the reply to this 
inquiry. "A review of the preceding examples must 
lead any one, I think, to the conclusion, that the pre- 
dominant usage of the words riunrut and j^«/tt/;o», is to 
designate the idea of dipping, plunging, and overwhelm- 
ing, and (in the case of ^unro)) of tinging or dyeing. 
But we have already seen in Nos. G, 7, above respecting 
classic usage, that riunno is employed in the sense of 
bathing the surface of any thing with a fluid, and also of 
icashing it. AVe have also seen in Nos. 2, 5, 6, of exam- 
ples from the Septuagint and Apocrypha, tliat the word 
(iaTTTlZui, sometimes means to wash; and tiu.-ruo to moisten, 
to wet or bedew. There is then no absolute certainty 
from usage, that the word Su:it(';u), when applied to de- 
signate the rite of baptism, means of course to immcrgc or 
plunge. It may mean ^cashing ; possibly (but not prob- 
ably) it may mean, copiously moistening or bedewing ; be- 
cause words coming from the common root B^-ill, are 
applied in both these senses, as we have seen above."* 

The conclusion here stated, is of course drawn from 
the significations of ^unji'lot [baptizo,] as given by Prof. 
Stuart in the preceding sections. If those significations 
require to be modified, the conclusion must in like man 
ner be modified. My examination of Nos. 6 and 7 of 
examples drawn from classic usage, and of Nos. 2, 5, 
and 6, of examples from the Septuagint and the Apocry- 
pha, shows that the conclusion above stated is not sus- 
tained ; and that the word {iuriTl'ico is, in reality, suffi- 
ciently specific and definite to determine its meaning, 
when applied to designate the rite of baptism. 

* P. 313. 



56 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Prof. Stuart here introduces a discussion, which a 
correct view of the proper force and signification of 
§u7ni'j<) renders in a great measure needless. The dis- 
cussion relates to the different cases of nouns and the 
different prepositions used after the word ButttI^o). The 
classic Greek writers frequently employ the Accusative 
case with the preposition f-lg [into] after this verb ; and 
when thus employed by them, no doubt can be entertain- 
ed that they meant to express the idea of immersing. 
In Mark 1 : 9, precisely this form of expression occurs ; 
" Jesus . . . was baptized [immersed] fig lov 'logdupijr^ 
into, or in the Jordan." But the sacred writers gene- 
rally do not thus connect tlie verb with the Accusative 
and the preposition f-l;. Their prevalent manner is, to 
use the Dativ^e case, eitlier with or without the preposi- 
tion li' (in, bi/, with) after this verb. The inquiry sug- 
gested by this departure of the sacred writers from the 
more common usage of the classic writers, is, (not 
whether f <? and £^', {into and in) may not be synonymous, 
especially in the New Testament, as they both corres- 
pond to the Hebrew preposition ^, but) whether the in- 
spired writers did not " intend to avoid a description of 
the manner of the rite, by forms of expression which 
designate merely the means, without marking the man- 
ner.''^ Prof. Stuart is Jiot conjidcnt that such urns their in- 
tention ; * but yet, although Mark 1 : 9 is so entirely in 
accordance with classic use as expressing the idea of 
immersion, he cannot think it " quite safe to build with 
confidence upon" this " solitary example ;" particularly 
considering that the preposition el; may, in certain con- 
nections, rather mean at than into. Thus it is " a possi- 
ble construction" of this passage in Mark, that it was 

* r. 314. 



USAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 57 

iiitcMuled to convey no other meaning than that Jesus 
was bapti/cd " at the river Jordan.'''' Of this, however, 
he entertains '* some doubts," and seems rather dispos- 
ed to favor the opinion that tlie expression in Mark 
" may desii^natc no more than the element with which^ 
or by which,''' [not in which] *' John performed the rite 
of baptism." Some passa^i^es are quoted ; they contri- 
bute, however, but httle, if any thing, to the purpose, as 
they do not exhibit the preposition ^Z; in such connec- 
tions as the passage in INIark places it. Remarkably 
apposite as is this passage to show, that the word SunTl':oi 
has a meaning sufficiently definite to imply that the rite of 
baptism was performed only by immersion, he yet seems 
to conclude that as this is a " solitary example,^'' it ought 
not to be considered as adding " confirmation to the 
supj)osition of such a meaning."* 

The discussion of this point is not so lucid, nor is 
Prof. Stuart's opinion of the passage so clearly stated, 
as might have been expected. Indeed, it may well be 
considered a hopeless undertaking to reconcile this pas- 
sage in 3Iark with any other representation, than that 
Jesus Mas immersed in, or into, the river Jordan. 

The discussion, I have said, is in a great measure a 
needless one. I will assign my reasons. 

1. The word ,'?«rrr/:o» is more specific and definite 
than Prof. Stuart has represented it ; and it is an im- 
proper extension of its meaning, that is fundamental in 
this particular discussion. Let this error be correct- 
ed, and the discussion would have no place. Instead 
of the preposition influencing the meaning of the verb, 
it is rather the verb that should decide the meaning 
of the preposition. That is, granting that the prepo- 

* Pp. 315, 318. 



58 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

sition here used, may perhaps, in certain connections, 
mean at rather than m, or into, it is yet far from being 
a just conclusion that the verb, liere employed, does not 
necessarily mean to immerse ; but on the contrary, be- 
cause the predominant meaning of this verb is confess- 
edly to immerse, it is a fair conclusion that the ordinary 
meaning of the preposition, in, or into, must be retained. 

2. The sacred writers not unfrequently use li; where 
from more common usage we should expect tv ; that is, 
the one preposition is used for the other without any 
very obvious design ; compare Mark 2 : 1. 13 : 9. 13 : 16. 
Luke 11 : 7. John 1 : 18. This may have resulted in 
their usage from the influence of the Hebrew preposi- 
tion 3, to which both ti; and tV correspond, and which 
requires to be rendered in, into, hy, or with, &c. in dif- 
ferent connections. As this one preposition in Hebrew 
has so extensive a meaning, it might be supposed, as we 
actually find, that in Hebraistic Greek there would be 
some interchanging of these prepositions, both of which 
so nearly correspond to the same Hebrew preposition. 

3. The classic writers use both of these forms of ex- 
pression ; and a distinction between ^unii:^u) followed by 
fi,, and ^u:ct(';oj followed by t>', or by a Dative without 
any preposition, is not in their use perfectly and uniform- 
ly obvious, so as to establish a principle in the language. 
Even the examples produced by Prof. Stuart,* in which 
^^unru) is followed by a Genitive case, with a preposition 
or without one, do not direct the mind to the means, (the 
ocean, or a stream, for instance, with which any thing is 
bathed), so far as to ])revent the mind from noticing the 
profuse quantity of the means. Thus, in the example 
from Aratus, Phaenom. v. 951, bathes herself noiuuoio, 
WITH the river, 

* P. 31(3. 



USAGE OF T ir E NEW TESTAMENT. 59 

The examples of Sitml'^o) and Sunnn followed by a 
Dative,* with or without a preposition, show that tlie 
distinction, if ever made, was not universally regarded. 
The expression, ^^ Dipping it in winr,{h' olrot) thy drink 
it,^' Aristotle, Hist. Anim. VIII. 29, does not essentially 
differ from the expression, Dipping it into wine^ {itg 
diroy). In the example from Aristophanes, *' Thei/ dip 
the wool -d^eQuco in warm ivater, the Dative is used without 
a preposition. But may not this use be explained by 
considering the preposition, ^'', as understood before the 
Dative 1 Thus this example would resemble the prece- 
ding one. Nor is the mind so much directed to the ma- 
terial, namely ivarm water, as to lose sight of the profuse- 
ness and thoroughness of the washing, or dipping. So 
with the other examples. 

4. Even were the distinction in classic use fairly sus- 
tained, Prof. Stuart has himself said in another part of 
his article! (whether with perfect propriety or not, I 
need not here examine), " Classical usage can never be 
very certain in respect to the meaning of a word in the 
New Testament. Who does not know, that a multitude 
of Greek words here receive their colouring and particu- 
lar meanings from the Hebrew, and not from the Greek 
classics 1" 

In regard to the expression in Mark 1 : 9, l^amlcTdT] 
. . . ii; Tor 'logddi'rii', urns baptized into, or in, the Jordan, 
which seems to have suggested this discussion, I am 
not at all anxious to prove, that the preposition iic, here 
employed, does add material strength to an argument 
in favor of immersion. The use of h;, in itself consid- 
ered, that is, without considering the proper force of 
§a7tii^o), might be explained by a reference to other pas- 

* P. 31G. t P. 382. 



60 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

sages which show that Mark did not always nicely dis- 
tjriminate between the two prepositions, hg and iv. The 
use of this preposition, in the present instance, is indeed 
in perfect accordance witluhe proper meaning of j^wm/tw; 
so that the preposition might naturally be suggested by 
the verb. Just as in English, it would be perfectly natural 
to say, he was immersed or clipped into the river ; while 
yet it is equally common to say he loas immersed^ or dip- 
ped, IN the river. Again, if controversy were kept out of 
sight, and regard were paid simply to facts in the usage 
of language, not one scholar in a thousand would hesi- 
tate to render tig as here situated, by in or into. Still 
the expression, used by Mark, is not materially different 
from the expression ev tw " logdui')]'^ just as, in English, 
there is no material difference between the expression, 
he teas immersed into the Jordan, and the expression, he 
was immersed in the Jordan. It is, after all, the meaning 
of the verb which must guide us ; and this, I trust, has 
been shown to be sufficiently specific and definite. 

After this discussion, which is both a needless and an 
unsuccessful one, Prof. Stuart declares himself " philo- 
logically compelled" to conclude, " that the probabil- 
ity that 8rt7TTl';o) implies immersion, is very considerable, 
and on the whole a predominant one ; but it does not 
still amount to certainty. Both the classic use and that 
of the Septuagint shew," he says, ♦' that toashing and co- 
pious affusion are sometimes signified by this word. 
Consequently, the rite of baptism may have been per- 
formed in one of these ways, although it is designated 
by the word (^«rrr/;'w."* 

This statement, however ample its acknowledgments 
may appear to some, requires alteration. For among 

•* P. 318. 



GENERAL USAGE OF THE N E W T E S TA M E N T. I 

all the examples adduced by its autlior from classic wri- 
ters to illustrate the meaning of §(tnric,u}y and among all 
the sigiiificatioMS furnished by him, I have searched in 
vain for tiie signification washing and copious affusion.^ 
Tlie examples from the Septuagint and the Apocrypha 
adduced to sustain the meaning to wash, do i)y no means 
support that meaning, while the meaning of copious af- 
fusion does not occur among the alleged Septuagint uses 
of this word. Prof. Stuart had, probably, in his mind, 
while writing the sentence above quoted, the significa- 
tions, " to smear over or moisten by dipping in," and, '* to 
moisten, wet, bedew,'''' ascribed by him to Sujijoi [bapto] in 
the Septuagint ; and perhaps he intended these to be con- 
sidered as equivalent to the signification, cc|/9/ow5 affusion. 
On these alleged significations I have already sufficiently 
remarked in the preceding section. That " the rite of 
baptism may have been performed" by washing or co- 
pious allusion, is not then sustained by actual usage. 
And even i^, in some instances, the word might be 
rendered ivash, it would no more be a necessary con- 
sequence that baptize and wash are synonymous, than it 
would be a necessary consequence that immerse and wash 
are synonymous, because we can speak of a thing as 
washed which has been immersed. 

Prof. Stuart concludes this topic with the acknowl- 
edgment (an acknowledgment, which ought to have been 



* I confine this remark to i^aTtT^^w [baptizo], for this is the word 
now under consideration. The only apparent exception to the re- 
mark is, the instance which occurs under number 6, of meanings 
in classical use. But that is only an apparent exception. 

The meaning to xcash is indeed ascribed to Hamdi [bapto] : but 
the idea of dipping is unquestionably connected with this meaning. 
Sec number 7, of meanings in classical u>3v , 
6 



62 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

expressed in stronger terms), " On the whole, however, 
the probability seems to be in favor of the idea of im- 
mersion, when we argue simply from the force of the 
words or expressions in themselves considered."* In 
view of all the preceding philological investigations, and 
with regard solely to philological necessity, 1 may rather 
ask. Does the force of the word ^(x7ttI':o), in itself consid- 
ered, permit us to depart from the idea of immersion ? 

§ 2. " Circumstances attencling Baptism^ 

*' Do the circumstances ivhich attend the administration 
of the rite of haptism, as related in the Neio Testament^ 
cast any light upon the manner of the rite itself 7'*^ 

Two passages are here introduced, on which depend- 
ence is sometimes placed as being decidedly favorable 
to the practice of immersion ; namely. Matt. 3 : 16, 
And Jesus, when he ivas haptized, went up straightway 
out of the water; and Mark 1 : 10, And straightway 
coming up out of the water. 

" The question has been raised," Prof. Stuart says, 
" whether this means ' Went up out of the water of the 
river,' i. e. rose up after being plunged into the river, and 
came out of the water."t That it does not mean the 
rising up from undernecUh the water after having been im- 
mersed into it, lie shows by three considerations. *' 1. 
The rite of baptism was completed, before John [Jesus] 
went up from the water." 2. " The verb" used by the 
Evangelists (uru^alvLo) " will hardly permit such an in- 
terpretation." The proper verb to express the rising 
up from under the water, and the "one continually em- 
ployed by the ecclesiastical fathers, in order to desig- 
nate emerging from the water" is uradho^ "which means 
to come up out of,''"' " or to emerge fromJ'"' 3. " The pre- 



318. t r. 310. 



C I R C U M S T A N C K S ; MATT. 1 : 16. G3 

position," employed by the Evangelists, "will not allow 
such a construction."* 

It is then stated as " a clear case, that Jesus retired 
from the water of the river, by going up its banks. 
Nothing more can properly be deduced from it."* 

Prof. vStuart seems not to have correctly apprehended 
the precise bearing of these verses upon the question in 
liand. The expressions, went up out of the water, and 
coming up out of the loater, or as the preposition might be 
rendered \from the water,' are not understood by those 
in opposition to whom he wrote, as referring at all to 
the action of arhing from underneath the surface of the 
water ; but to what took place after Jesus had thus arisen, 
namely, his retiring to the bank from the spot in the 
river where he was baptized; that is, his coming out of, 
or from, the water. This would, of course, be a coming 
up, an ascending, from a lower place to a higher. This, 
I presume, is the meaning generally ascribed to these 
expressions ; not that, against which the arguments 
above stated are directed. This meaning also agrees 
with common usage in speech, and is not contrary to 
the original text. Whether the expressions, disconnect- 
ed from the train of discourse, might not be otherwise 
understood, is a question of little moment. Nor will 
I undertake to say, that this is incontrovertibly their 
meaning. Suffice it to say, that this meaning violates 
no principle in language, and is not at all forced ; and 
that these verses are altogether favorable to the belief 
that an immersion was performed, because, in addition 
to the meaning of the word §unii;o), the persons men- 
tioned resorted to a river in order that baptism might be 
administered. On this last point, I am happy in being 



64 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

able to employ the language of Prof. Stuart. When 
speaking of baptism performed *' at or in some stream," 
he asks, " What other good reason for this can be given, 
excepting that immersion was practised?"* 

The next passage, on which any comments are made, 
under the head of Circumstances attending Baptism, is 
John 3 : 23, And John also was haptizing in Enon near to 
Sali?n, because there was much water there : and they came 
and were baptized. 

" The question is," Prof. Stuart says, " Whether 
John baptized at Enon near Salim, because the waters 
were there abundant and deep, so as to afford conve- 
nient means of immersion ; or whether the writer means 
merely to say, that John made choice of Enon, because 
tliere was an abundant supply of water there for the ac- 
commodation of those who visited him, for the sake of 
being baptized and of hearing the powerful addresses 
which he made to the Jews.t ... I cannot avoid the 
belief," he concludes, "that vdaTu txoU.u. [much water, 
or many waters] is designed, as Beza says, to designate 
many streams or rivulets. John chose a place abounding 
in these, when he removed from the banks of the 
Jordan, in order that the multitudes who flocked to him 
might be accommodated. ":[; 

The impression which this verse naturally makes on 
a reader is, that John repaired to Enon near to Salim, 
because it aft'orded facilities for baptizing. This obvi- 
ous meaning of tlie verse is displaced by several writers, 
and the Evangelist is supposed by them to mean, that 
John repaired to Enon because the abundant supply of 
water found there would be very favora])le for accom- 
modating his hearers during their attendance upon his 

*r.a^>7. fP. 3'21. tP. 324. 



circumstances; john 3:2 3. 65 

preaching. In otlier words, it was not so nuich for tlie 
convenience of baptizing the proper subjects of baptism, 
as it was for accommodating the people and their beasts. 
To tills opinion Prof. iStuart assents, as is above stated, 
and he beUeves that the words, much water [literally, 
mnvy icaters'] were intended to signify many streams or 
rivulets. The authority of Beza, " one of the most acute 
judges of Greek idiom,"* is introduced as sustaining 
this meaning of the phrase. 

It is, perhaps, to be lamented, that sacred geography 
furnishes no testimony in regard to Enon near to Salim. 
The precise situation of these places is now unknown. 
But without making any conjectures as to the circumstan- 
ces of John's hearers, or as to the length of time which in- 
dividuals and companies might have spent in their at- 
tendance upon him, and without dwelling on the ge- 
ographical improbability that in Palestine or its im- 
mediate vicinity, there were many streams so near to 
each other as this interpretation would imply, the verse 
itself is sufficiently plain to an unbiassed reader. If the 
Evangelist meant to say, that John went to this place 
because it was a remarkably favorable place for baptiz- 
ing the converts, how could he more plainly have ex- 
pressed himself? 

An attempt is made to show from philological consid- 
erations, that the words translated much water designate, 
in accordance with Beza's opinion, mani/ streams, or 
rivulets. Hence the conclusion is drawn, that " John 
chose a place abounding in these ... in order that the 
multitudes who flocked to him might be accommodated." 
If it must be so then, be it so, that instead of the words 
much 2oater, there should be the words mani/ streams. 

* P. 323. 
6* 



66 CHRISTIANBAPTISM. 

How does this affect the statement of the Evangelist? 
John icns baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there 
were many streams there; and the people came and were 
baptized. Streams and rivulets are certainly very suita- 
ble for the administration of baptism. 

But the philological investigation, by which Prof. 
Stuart arrives at the conclusion that vdara nolla [many 
waters] meixns 7nani/ strcatJis, is altogether unsatisfactory. 
It is by no means an appropriate one. He examines 
the meaning of w()w9, [literally rendered ivater], and finds 
reason to believe that it sometimes means a river, or 
stream, as well as water in general ; lie also shows that 
the plural vdura [waters] means rivers or streams. Then 
" the natural and primary meaning of nolvg [ttoXIu] is 
inani/ in opposition to few.''^^ The result, then, would 
seem to be, that i)()«ra nolXa [many waters] means many 
streams or rivulets. 

Now this may seem plausible ; but after all, it is in- 
correct. All the premises separately taken, are doubt- 
less true ; but the conclusion is not true, because the 
manner of investigation is not adapted to the case in 
hand. It is the compound term, or the phrase, v5aTu noXXu 
[many waters], that ought to be examined, in order to 
discover whether it should be rendered, as Beza directs, 
many streams. There needs be no discussion about the 
meaning of the word vduTu [waters] separately taken, or 
of no'/.hx [many] separately taken. It is the phrase, 
which philology should investigate. Now all the 
numerous passages which Prof. Stuart brings for- 
ward to illustrate the idiom of the language, are really 
inappropriate, with the exception only of Rev. 1 : 15. 
14 : 2. 17 : 1, 15. 19 : 0. All the rest might have been 

*P. 324. 



circumstances; john 3:2 3. 67 

spared. It may also be mentioned, that Matt. 17 : 15, to 
which reference is made* as containing the word ?(5«r«, 
does not contain it. This ovcrsiglit, however, may 
perhaps be accounted for, from the circumstance tliat 
tlie parallel passage in Mark does contain the word. 

As to the explication of the phrase vdura ttoU.u [many 
waters or much water], there are two considerations to 
which regard should be paid. 

I. It is a phrase peculiar, in the New Testament, to 
John ; and it occurs sufficiently often in his writings to 
enable one to form a correct opinion of its meaning. 
We need not then go beyond the writings of Joiin in the 
New Testament to obtain the materials of information. 
Examine Rev. 1 : 15. 14 : 2. 19 : 6. It is perfectly ob- 
vious, that, in these passages, the sacred writer had in 
mind an abundant mass of water, agitated by storm and 
roaring as the voice of thunder. But, it is said, the 
"waves of the sea are successive, and (so to speak) dif- 
ferent and broken masses of water ; not one continuous 
mass, deep and abundant .... It is the movement, the 
division, the succession, and the motion which form 
the ground of this idea." t Is this, I ask, a natural and 
probable representation ? Who can believe, that the 
sacred writer indulged in such a refining of thought ? It 
is not the language of a metaphysical writer, but of one 
whose loftiness of conception and ardor of thought could 
not be detained by such minute refining. It was an 
abundant mass of water " into" thundering " tempest 
wrought," that the writer employed to express what he 
had heard. 

The same phrase occurs in Rev. 17 ! 1, 15. Here, 
too, the idea of abundant water happily agrees with the 

* P. 322. 1 P. 322. 



68 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

context. The idea of streams and rivers is utterly inap- 
propriate. The city of Rome is here spoken of, with 
special reference to its widely extended dominion, and 
its connection with all the kingdoms of the then known 
world. In order to place before his readers Rome thus 
connected with all nations, and sending through them 
all a corrupting and destructive influence, the writer de- 
scribes it as a wealtliy and luxurious city, situated upon, 
or near the sea, and possessing every facility for com- 
mercial intercourse. The city, thus situated, is represent- 
ed to the reader, according to frequent Scriptural usage, 
as a female. Not that Rome actually was in the imme- 
diate vicinity of any great body of water ; it is the image, 
a flourishing city favorably situated for intercourse with 
the nations, to wliich we must direct our attention. And 
in order to convey to the mind an idea of a magnificent 
and luxurious city spreading its ruinous influence through 
the know^n world, what image so appropriate, as that of 
a great commercial mart which would attract the kings 
of the earth and the inhabiters of the earth ? In this 
view, the many waters as meaning a sea are remarkably 
suitable. Whether the image presented to the mind, if 
many waters mean many streams or rivers^ be a natural 
and appropriate one, may be determined by embodying 
before the mind's eye the representation thus furnished, 
namely, a woman sitting on " many streams or rivers of 
water."* 

In all the places then of the New Testament, which 
furnish examples of this phrase, many rivukts would not 
answer the writer's purpose as a translation of the 
phrase ; but obviously he had in mind abundant masses of 
water. 

* r. 3:22. 



circumstances; john 3:2 3. 69 

I might here take leave of tlie phrase ; but there is 
a second corisitleration in regard to it which I will pre- 
sent from a desire that a full view of this case may be 
exhibited. 

2. The style of .Tohn is peculiarly Hebraistic ; and the 
phrase rt^«T« noXXa [manyVaters] is to be ranked among 
his Hebraisms. The usage of the Septuagint, then, and 
the corresponding phrase in Hebrew, will contribute 
to a satisfactory explanation. In the Hebrew Bible, the 
word translated water is not used in the singular num- 
ber ; a literal translation of the word would be always 
waters, and when the idea of abundant water, or of large 
masses of water, is to be expressed, the adjective em- 
ployed corresponds to the noun in being of the plural 
number. The phrase tr)"'3'^ o;:? [many waters] is of 
frequent occurrence, and is literally translated in the 
Septuagint by the phrase vduru rtoXXu [many ivaters]. This 
Greek phrase is accordingly found in various passages 
of the Septuagint version. An examination of the Sep- 
tuagint with reference to this phrase, furnishes the fol- 
lowing results. In 2 Sam. 22 : 17. Ps. 18 : 16. Ps. 29 : 3. 
32 : 6. 77 : 19. 93 : 4. 107 : 23. 144 : 7, the phrase oc- 
curs, and in not one of these places does the idea of 
" many rivulets" correspond to the connection ; but 
clearly the idea is expressed of ahxindant water, and in 
all, except Ps. 29 : 3, is the idea also contained of over- 
fioicing water. In Jer. 51 : 13 [Sep. 28 : 13, Heb. 51 : 
50], it again occurs where it manifestly means the Eu- 
phrates together, probably, with the lakes and canals 
formed from the Euphrates in the vicinity of Babylon. 

Such is the Septuagint use of this phrase; a use to 
which the Evangelist was accustomed, and by which he 
was guided. There is, then, only this one instance, in 
Jeremiah, in which there is even a remote resemblance 



70 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

to Beza's rendering of tlie phrase. Remote this may 
well be called, even if it were not the Euphrates by it- 
self considered, rather than as connected with the lakes 
and canals, that was occupying the writer's mind. 

There is one passage, which might suggest to some 
the idea that there were, properly speaking, rivers in 
the immediate vicinity of Babylon. It is Ps. 137 : 1, 
By the rivers of Babylon, there loe sat down. To those 
who are acquainted with the geography of that region, 
this presents no difficulty. By the word rivers, the ca- 
nals fed by the Euphrates are meant. 

The general usage of the Septuagint is manifest. 1 
need not say, to what conclusion this usage compels us 
in translating the phrase vdura nokhx [many ivaters], as 
used by a writer so Hebraistic as John. 3Iuch or abun- 
dant water J is a faithful translation ; while the phrase 
many riuukts, or streams^ would do violence to general 
usage. 

This conclusion is confirmed by the fact, that, for the 
most part, in the usage of the Septuagint, the phrase 
vduTu 7ioX}.u [many waters] and the phrase vdb)Q rtokv [much 
water] are not materially different from each other. In 
the following passages, Is. 17 : 12, 13. 23 : 3. 28 : 2. 
Ezek. 1 : 24. 26 : 19. 27 : 26. Sol. Song 8 : 7, the phrase 
occurs in the singular number [much water], although the 
corresponding Hebrew phrase is in the plural ; so that 
the same Hebrew phrase may be rendered either by the 
singular number, or by the plural. That is to say, in 
the usage of the Septuagint, much water and many waters 
are equivalent expressions. Nor in the passages quot- 
ed above, is there any perccjitible reason why the sin- 
gular is preferred. For in those passages, it is the 
abundant, the overwhelming, the roaring water, or waters, 
or masses of water, to wbich allusion is made ; and 



CIRCUMSTANCKS; JOHN 3:2 3. 71 

which are ccrtiiiiily expressed in other phices hy the 
phiral phrase. 

Somewliat similar to this frecpieiit usage of the Sep- 
tuagint, there is an instance in the New Testament. In 
this instance, the adjective does not occur ; still it fur- 
nishes evidence, that the j)liiral vduru [waters] and the 
singular v^oiq [water] might he used interchangeably. 
Compare Matt. 17 : 15 with Mark 9 : 22. The two Evan- 
gelists are here relating the same transaction, and they 
mention the same circumstances. xMatthew, however, 
employs the word water in the singular uumhcr, while 
Mark uses the plural. The English version translates 
literally, thus ; Matthew says, Ofttimes he fallcth into 
the Jirc and oft into the water, vdoo ; Mark says, Oft- 
times it hath cast him into the fire and into the waters, 
vduxu. Doubtless, both Matthew and Mark meant the 
same thing. 

As shedding at least a ray of light on this subject, I 
wish to present, in connection, two passages from the 
Old Testament. Jer. 41 : 12 [Sept. 48 : 12], They 
found him [Ishmael] hy the great waters that are in 
Giheon ; great waters, ii3'3l JZ3;d the same words 
which are so frequently translated many waters. What 
is meant by this expression in Jeremiah ? What were 
the great waters in Gibeon.'' Compare 2 Sam. 2 : 12, 
13, 14. And Abncr, the son of AW, and the servants of 
Ish-hosheth the son of Saul, loent out from Mahanaijn to 
Giheon. And Joah the son of Zcruiah, and the servants 
of David, went out, and met together by the pool of gib- 
eox ; and they sat down, the one on the one side of the 
pool, and the other on the other side of the pool. And 
Abner said to Joab, Let the young men now arise, and 
flay before us. And Joab said. Let them arise. It is cer- 
tainly a very natural inquiry. Are not the great, or the 



72 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

MANY WATERS, oi', as the Scptuagint here translates, the 
MUCH WATER, mentioned in Jeremiah, the same as the 
POOL mentioned in 2 Samuel ? Without rejjlying myself 
to this inquiry, I quote the following sentences from Cal- 
met's Dictionary of the Bible, recently revised and 
edited by Prof. Robinson, of the Andover Theological 
Seminary. See under the word Gibeon. " It is said, 
(2 Sam. 2 : 13) that there was a pool in Gibeon. Wheth- 
er it were of any considerable extent, does not appear 
from this passage ; but there is little doubt that it is the 
same as the * great waters that are in Gibeon,' Jer. 41 : 
12." Here then the phrase nu'S"^ ^^'.^^ to which vduia 
noll& [many icaters] literally corresponds, indicates a 
body of water sufficiently large indeed for two hostile 
companies to be on opposite sides without encountering 
each other, and yet sufficiently small to admit of persons 
speaking to each other from the opposite sides. 

What now is the result of this protracted investiga- 
tion ? Briefly this. In the New Testament use of the 
phrase, laying aside, for the present, the passage in the 
Gospel of John, ahimdant water is expressed, not streams 
or rivulets. In the Septuagint use of the phrase, it is 
not streams or rivulets that are indicated. With these 
statements before us, can we reasonably doubt as to the 
meaning of the phrase in the Gospel of John ? If phi- 
lology is to decide the question, does it not furnish ample 
evidence, that the phrase does not mean many rivulets, or 
streams ; but that it rather means a considerable body of 
water? A pliilological investigation, properly conduct- 
ed, is fatal to Beza's rendering of the phrase. 

I undertook this investigation, however, not because I 
thought it would decide the question why John resorted 
to the place mentioned, but to satisfy my curiosity and to 
let others know what are the facts. Nothing material is 



AT'THORITY OF BEZA. 73 

gained, as to the question which some, in my opinion 
very needlessly, raise. If there were many streams at 
that place, it would be a very convenient place for bap- 
tizing, as well as for accommodating the hearers and 
tlieir animals. If there were at that place, as philology 
teaches, a considerable body of water, that too would 
be very suitable for baptizing, and perhaps quite as 
suitable for the other purposes. On this question^ 
then, let the sacred writer himself speak ; and let com- 
mon sense exercise its plain honesty in understanding the 
very simple and intelligible declaration : John was bap- 
tizing in Enon near to Salini, because there ivas much water 
there ; and they [the people] came and were baptized. 

One word more. Beza is referred to, as a person of 
much authority and as having pronounced that the phrase 
in question means many rivulets or streams. Now Beza 
arrived at his conclusion, so far as appears from this 
article, in the same way essentially as did the author of 
the article. He referred to Matt. 3 ; 16, in which place 
the word water plainly means the river Jordan ; the con- 
sequence, it would seem, was then drawn, that the word 
vdtcTu [icaters'] means rivers, streams. On the inappro- 
priateness of this mode of investigation in the present in- 
stance, I have sufficiently remarked. Beza is also 
mentioned as " one of the most acute judges of Greek 
idiom ;" and consequently his decision would seem to 
be of great moment. Now I abhor the disposition that 
would, for any purposes, detract from any man's just 
reputation : I also count it wrong to strengthen a weak 
cause by an appeal to names, especially when any ex- 
ceptions can be taken as to the qualifications of the 
man, to whose aiithority the appeal is made. But un- 
willing as I am to draw any man's " frailties from their 
dread abode," it is certainly the dictate of justice and of 
7 



74 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

candor, that readers should have knowledge respecting 
the men who are held up as oracles. " Beza," then, 
*' with natural talents considerably above the middle 
rate, had a good deal of learning, and understood 
well both Greek and Latin ; but he neither knew He- 
brew (though he had the assistance of some who knew 
it), nor does he seem to have been much conversant; in 
the translation of the Seventy [the Septuagint]. Hence 
it has happened, that his critical acuteness is not always 
so well directed as it might have been. The significa- 
tions of words and idioms are often determined by him 
from classical authority, which might with greater ease 
and more precision have been ascertained by the usage 
of the sacred writers and their ancient interpreters."* 
Whether in explaining the phrase vdara noll<x [many 
waters], his critical acuteness was so well directed as 
it might have been, may easily be decided by those who 
have attended to the preceding investigation of Septua- 
gint use. 

Again ; Beza is said to have been " too violent a party 
man to possess that impartiality, without which it is 
impossible to succeed as an interpreter of holy writ."t 
Prof. Stuart also says of him in reference to another 
topic, " His zeal against the Anabaptists misled him." J 
Perhaps, too, it misled him on this ; for such was his 
zeal against those who were called AnabajUists, that he 
names them among certain religious sects whom he calls 
monstra hominum [monsters of men]. § 



* Dr. G. Campbells Preliminary Dissertations. Diss. X. 
Pt. V. § :?. 

t Id. Diss. X. Pt. V. § 4. 

t P. 387. 

§ Dr. G. Campbell, Diss. X. Pt. V. § 12. 



circumstances; acts 8 : 3G — 3 9. 75 

The passaj^e tliat next claims our attention as sliowing 
sonic circumstances connected with baptism, is Acts 
H : 3G — 'l\). It relates to the baptism of the Ethiopian 
eunuch by Pliiiip. As they went on their wai/, thei/ e(tnie 
unto a eertain water .... nnd they went down biitk into the 
water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and he baptized him. 
And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of 
the Lord caught aioay Philip. 

In his remarks on this passaj^e, Prof. Stuart lias fallen 
into the same mistake as in his remarks on Matt. 3 : 16. 
That is, he labors under the impression that the act of 
going down into the ivater, as our version expresses it, is 
understood by those against whom he is writing, as 
being the act of immersion ; and the coming up out of the 
water, as being the emersion, or the rising up from under 
the surface of the water. Now it is very, possible, that 
some persons 7nay have cherished such a notion. But 
how they could have acquired it, is to me unknown ; for 
our English version represents that the baptism took 
place cfter the descent into the water. For myself, I 
say, this notion never entered my mind till it was in- 
troduced by the representations which some advocates 
for infant sprinkling felt themselves at liberty to make, 
respecting the sentiments of those whom they were op- 
posing ; nor do I recollect ever having heard a Baptist 
express this notion. So different is it from what I be- 
lieve to be the current opinion respecting this passage, 
that some may think me guilty of a mistake in rej)re- 
senting a distinguished scholar as combating this notion, 
and as taking advantage from it against those whose 
opinions he is controverting. 

I beg leave, however, to quote the language of Prof. 
Stuart. He says, "I have another remark to make on 
y.aTi3ij<jup uficpuTFooi ei; to v8(j)o, they both wc?it down to 



76 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

the water. This is, that if y.uib^^isav el; to vdtofj [they icent 
down to, or into the water] is meant to designate the ac- 
tion of plunging or being immersed into the loater, as a 
part of the rite of baptism, then was Philip baptized as 
well as the eunuch; for the sacred writer says, that both 
locnt into the water. Here then must have been a rebap- 
tism of Philip ; and what is at least singular, he must 
have baptized himself, as well as the eunuch."* 

Very true, I add. But on whom does the absurdity 
of such consequences rest ? It is a mere assumption, 
against which the remark is directed. 

Again he says ; " All these considerations together 
shew, that the going down to the water, and the going up 
from the water, constituted no part of the rite of baptism 
itself; for Philip did the one and the other just as truly 
as the eunuch. As then neither the language allows us 
to construe the passage as signifying immersion and emer- 
sion, nor the circumstances permit us to interpret the 
passage thus, we have no good and sufficient grounds 
here to consider this example as making any determina- 
tion with respect to the mode of the baptismal rite."t 

Throughout his remarks on this passage, Prof. Stu- 
art blends together two things that are perfectly dis- 
tinct ; namely, the going down into the neater, and the im- 
mersion into it. That the going down into the water 
was the immersion, no one believes; the immersion, 
after the descent into the water, is expressed by another 
word, he baptized him. 

The proper question to be discussed on this passage, 
and a question which ought to be considered apart and 
by itself, is, whether the sacred writer meant to say, 
that Philip and the eunuch actually went down into the 

* P. 3% t P. 3'2(). 



circumstances; acts 8 : iJ — 3 9. 77 

water, that is, descended to such a distance into the 
water as was rc(iuisite for immersion ; or whether he 
meant only to say, tliat tliey went down to the water, 
that is, to its margin. 

Prof. Stuart vindicates this hitter view. His reasons 
arc, 1. The preposition here employed [<?'c], means to 
and towards, as well as into. 2. The verb here employ- 
ed [y.ant.Sulyot], when analyzed, rather expresses the 
movement down to a place, \\mn the entrance into the place. 
The entrance, however, into the place, he says, *' may 
sometimes be included by popular diction."* To these 
reasons he appends the remarks whicli I have already 
examined. 

The opinion which Prof. Stuart has adopted is not, I 
observe, a necessary consequence from these two rea- 
sons. The preposition here used, and which our Eng- 
lish version renders into, certainly has the meaning into, 
as well as the meaning to and toicards. Again, the lan- 
guage of Luke is that of "popular diction," and not that 
of philosophical analysis; thus, by Prof. Stuart's own ac- 
knowledgment, the idea of entrance into the water may 
be included in this expression. Allowing, as every one 
ought to allow, that the preposition here used has in va- 
rious places the meaning to and towards, as well as into, 
and allowing that the preposition in itself considered can- 
not decide the question proposed, there yet is no insuper- 
able objection to its being here rendered into; and 
there is no insuperable objection to the clause being 
rendered, they iccnt down both into the water. 

But are there any positive reasons in favor of thus 
rendering the clause ? There are. 1. The verb here 
employed [yMra8a(vc»'\, when followed by the preposition 

* Pp. 325, 326. 
7* 



7S CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

used ill this passage, includes almost uniformly in the 
New Testament the idea of entrance into the place men- 
tioned. I refer to the following passages. John 2 : 12. 
Acts 7 : 15. 14 : 25. 16 : 8. IS: 22. 25 : 6. These all 
resemble each other. Without expressing each of them 
in English, let it suffice to mention one or two : Jesus 
went down to Capernaum ; is it not clearly implied that 
he went liXro Capernaum ? Jacob went down to Egypt ; 
did not tlve speaker and the writer mean, he went into 
Egypt, and not merely to the border of it ? So of the 
rest. Our common mode of speech illustrates the phrase- 
ology ; / am going to Boston^ means, that I intend to 
go into the city. 

Similar to these passages are Rom. 10 : 7, Eph. 4 : 9. 
I ought also here to mention Luke 10 : 30, A certain 
man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho; his intention, 
regarding the language as that of common life, was to 
enter the latter city as well as to go towards it. Acts 8 : 
26 should here be mentioned ; the icay going doionfrom 
Jerusalem to Gaza; that is, leading into Gaza, just as 
the road to Boston leads into Boston. 

I refer to two additional passages. Luke 18 : 14 ; Did 
the publican go down merely to his house ? Can we 
avoid the idea of his entering the house 1 Mark 13 : 15 ; 
Let him that is on the house top not [y.uTu^^ujix) lie Tr]y oiyluf] 
go down INTO the house ; then by an intensive repetition 
of the thought, the Saviour adds, let him not enter therein 
to take away any thing from his house. 

There are two passages in which this same preposi- 
tion is used in connection with this verb, but in which 
the nature of the case would seem to exclude the idea 
expressed by the preposition into. Luke 8 : 23. There 
came doum a storm of wind on the lake [yctr^fitj . . . fU Ti)t' 
Xl/urtji']. Rev. 13 : 13. He makcth fire come down from 



circumstances; acts 8 : 8G — 3 9. 79 

heaven on tlir earth [y.uju.Hrf el; ttji' jtjj']. But is there 
any thing in tlie nature of the case, that would indicate 
an impropriety in rendering Acts 8 : 3S, they went doicn 
INTO the water 1 

Such is the usage of the New Testament. If necessi- 
ty does not compel us to such a rendering of the passage 
in Acts, such a rendering is, to say the least, a justifiahle 
one. 

As showing that this rendering is, at least, a justifia- 
ble one, I wish to present a passage which occurs in the 
Gospel by John, G : 16, 17. Jesus, after having miracu- 
lously fed the multitude, retired to a mountain, so as to 
avoid the ill-timed movements of the people who wished 
to force upon him the assumption of regal power. His 
disciples, after evening had come in, left the place to go 
to Capernaum. They were to go by water. They went 
duicn, then, unto, or to the sea, and entered into the boat. 
The same verb is here employed, as is used in the pas- 
sage we are considering. But how does the sacred wri- 
ter express their going down to the sea ? By using the 
same preposition which Luke has employed in his ac- 
count of Philip and the eunuch ? No. His language 
is, i(<(Tc3ti(iav inl n^*- S-uluaauv ; not hg tr^v d^uluaaav ; in 
English, as nearly as I can here represent the difterence, 
they went down to the sea ; not into the sea. 

2. A second reason (I adduce it as confirmatory mere- 
ly, as favoring, not in itself deciding), a second reason, 
which favors the usual rendering of the passage in the 
Acts, they loent doion into the water, not simply to the 
water, is found in the 39th verse, they came up out of 
the water. The preposition i^y. is here used ; the proper, 
distinctive meaning of which is, out of, and which im- 
plies that the persons had gone into, or been in, and af- 
terwards came up out of, the place mentioned. To ex- 



80 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

press this idea, the preposition here used is precisely the 
word that would be selected. Prof. Stuart himself says, 
in his remarks on Matt. 3 : 16, that this preposition is 
the proper word " to indicate a movement oitt of a li- 
quid, into the air." * 

True, he says again in his remarks on the passage 
which we are now considering, that this preposition 
"by no means of necessity implies" this idea. But this 
observation possesses no force in this connection. It 
was occasioned by the mistake into which Prof Stuart 
was someliow betrayed, of supposing that the verb ren- 
dered come up is understood, by those whose opinion 
he was controverting, to mean the rising up from under 
the water, and that it is this assumed and incorrect 
meaning of the verb that makes the passage valuable to 
the advocates of immersion. At the same time, his 
mind was occupied with the opinion, that this verb 
\uva8uli'M'^ expresses the going up the bank. Assuming 
this, without proof, to be the idea expressed by the verb, 
the preposition [6)f], as connected with this verb, must 
then, of necessity, receive a different meaning from its 
ordinary one, so as to be conformed to this assumed 
meaning of the verb. 

But since this opinion of Prof. Stuart's respecting the 
verb aruSali'o), cannot be proved true, and since no one 
understands this verb as expressing the action of risijig 
up from under the water, the ground on which rests his 
proposed departure from the acknowledged ordinary 
meaning of tlie preposition, does not exist; and we are 
therefore brought back at once to the natural and usual 
meaning of the word. The preposition may be understood 
in all its natural and ordinary force, in perfect accor- 

* r. 320. 



circumstances; acts 8:3 6 — 3 9. 81 

daiicc with the usual meaning of every other word in 
tlie passage, and witliout exposing a single word to 
be misunderstood or misapplied. 

1 have great pleasure in saying, that this manner of 
explaining Prof. Stuart's departure from his own ac- 
knowledgment as to the meaning of this preposition, 
relieves this departure, in a great measure, from any 
just charge of a want of candor. It originated partly 
in his mistake, as to the ojjinions of others; partly, in his 
assumption, as to the idea expressed by a certain verb. 

The reasons which I have now produced certainly 
favor the belief, to say the least, that Philip and the 
eunuch actually descended into the water, in order that, 
while in the water, baptism might be performed. And 
while these reasons favor such a belief, there are no 
valid objections against the belief. 

And now what is the bearing of this passage upon the 
question of baptism ? Simply this. In order that Philip 
might baptize this new convert, they both went down into 
the water ; and why should they go down into the water, 
if an immersion was not to be performed \ It is in the 
light of a very strong confirmation, that this passage is 
employed as sustaining the practice of inmiersion. 

From this passage, which as to the circumstances 
connected with the baptism seems sufficiently clear, 
light is reflected upon Matt. 3 : 16, and Mark 1 : 10. 
In these passages Jesus is said to have come upyVow, or 
out of, the water, after having been baptized. The pre- 
position, however, employed in the original of these 
passages, is not so definite and specific as the preposi- 
tion used by Luke. But placing these two instances of 
baptism together, the phraseology in regard to which is 
so similar, one can scarcely doubt that Matthew and 
Mark, though the preposition they use is not so precise 



82 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

as the one used by Luke, yet meant to convey the idea 
that Jesus, after having been baptized, came forth out of 
the wafer to the hanh Thus, according to an important 
principle of interpretation, the clearer language of Luke 
in this instance sheds light upon the less clear language 
of Matthew and Mark. 

I will only add that, in view of the persons concerned 
going off from the margin to a convenient spot in the 
river for the sake of baptism, it is not at all surprizing 
that Mark should have related that Jesus was baptized 
(that is, immersed) u; toi^ 'logdurr/r into the Jordan. 

Let us now pause a moment, and see distinctly to what 
conclusions the preceding investigations have led us. 
They are briefly these. The proper meaning of the 
word Bami'Zo) [baptizo] is, to immerse, to bathe, to over- 
whelm ; and no example which has been produced re- 
quires a departure from this primary signification ; cer- 
tainly not such a departure as loses sight of this signifi- 
cation. In the scriptural accounts of the administration 
of baptism, which have thus far been considered, the 
circumstances happily agree with this meaning of the 
word ; for baptism is mentioned in connection with re- 
pairing to a river, and in connection with much water, 
and it was also performed urithin the river, at some dis- 
tance from the water's brink. 

I have now arrived at Prof. Stuart's interpretation of 
Rom. 6 : 3, 4, and Col. 2 : 12. These passages, every one 
knows, hold an important place in the discussions re- 
specting baptism. " Know ye not, that so many of us as 
were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his 
death ? Therefi)re we are buried with him by baptism 
ii|to death ; that, like as Christ was raised up from the 
dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should 
walk in newness of life." Col. 2 : 12. "Buried with 



ROMANS : 3, 4. 83 

liim in baptism, wlicrein also yc are risen witli liim 
tlirough the faith of the operation of God who hath raised 
him from the dead." 

The interpretation which I now proceed to examine, 
is extracted by its author from Iiis recent Commentary 
on tlie Epistle to the Romans. The point which lie en- 
deavors to establish is, that tlie burial, here mentioned, 
is not " a literal burial under water ;"* but that Chris- 
tians are here said to be dead and buried only in a moral 
or spiritual sense ; that is, that the apostle's expressions 
were not modified by what took place in the external 
administration of baptism ; or, in other words, that the 
apostle made no necessary allusion to the mode of the 
baptismal rite. 

I feel compelled to say, that the author's commentary 
on these verses fails to give satisfaction, and is liable to 
serious objections. The more frequently and the more 
attentively I examine it, and the more carefully I peruse 
the apostle's language, the more deep is my conviction 
that the commentary is not a proper representation of 
the original. 

In order to bring this part of the discussion fully be- 
fore the reader, I shall present a translation of the 
first eleven verses of the sixth chapter of this epistle, 
with a brief view of the apostle's design and meaning. 
This will be followed by an examination of the commen- 
tary on the passage. 

Romans, 6 : 1 — 11. 

What shall v;c say then P Shall we continue in sin tliat grace 
may abound? By no means. How shall we, who are dead to sin, 
live any longer in it ? Know ye not, that so many of us as have been 

* P. 32! >. 



84 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ? We 
have then been buried with him by baptism into his death ; that, 
as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glorious power of the 
Father, so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have 
been allied to him in the likeness of his death, so shall we be also 
in the likeness of his resurrection ; knowing this, that our old man 
is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, so 
that we should no longer be in subjection to sin ; for one who is 
dead is freed from sin. But if we be dead with Christ, we believe 
that we shall live with him ; knowing that Christ, having been 
raised up from the dead, dieth no more ; death hath no more do- 
minion over him. For in that he died, he died in respect to sin 
once for all ; but in that he liveth, he liveth in respect to God. 
Thus also consider ye yourselves dead indeed in respect to sin, 
but alive in respect to God, through Christ Jesus. 

The expressions, baptized into Jesus Christy and bap- 
tized into his death, require explanation. These phrases 
are more usually considered as meaning, baptized into 
an acknowledgment of Jesus Christ, with an implication of 
subjection or discipleship to him ;* and, baptized into an 
acknowledgment of his death. The commentary propo- 
ses a somewhat different explanation : thus ; " As many 
of us as have been baptized into Jesus Christ;" that is, 
" as many of us as have become devoted to Christ by 
baptism;" "or taken upon as a peculiar relation to 
him by being baptized."t We have been baptized into his 
death; "that is, we have, as it were, been made par- 
takers of his death by baptism," " we have engaged to 
die unto sin, as he died for it ; we have a communion or 
participation in death to sin."| 

I prefer the more usual and more .simple explanation. 
The expression baptized into death, or into his death 
[elg Tov ■d-ijiy(noy'\, may be comjiared with the expression 
which occurs in Matt. 3 : 11, / baptize you iinto repent- 

^ P. 327. t P. 32t<. t P. 328. 



I 



ROM A Ns, 6 : 3 , '1 . 85 

ance {fl; //fr/^rof«)], that is, into rcpmtanre. Tlic mean- 
ing of tliis declaration I understand to be this, I baptize 
you into an acknoiclcclgment of repentance ; so that by this 
baptism you acknowledge yourselves to be in a state of re- 
pentance ; in other words, by submitting to tliis baptism 
you profess repentance and bind yourselves to a life of 
amendment. So, to be baptized into the death of Christ, 
is to be baptized into an acknoicledgment of his death and 
into an acknowledgment of the obligations resulting 
from that death. 

I subjoin, for the sake of clearness, the following free 
and paraphrastic translation. 

What shall we say then ? Shall we continue in sin that grace may 
abound ? By no means. How shall we who have become dead 
in respect to sin, live any longer subject to it ? Do ye not know, 
that so many of us as have been baptized into an acknowledgment 
of Jesus Christ, were baptized into an acknowledgment of his 
death, or have by our baptism engaged to die unto sin, as he died 
for sin ? By baptism, then, which acknowledges his death, we 
have been buried, as he was buried ; that, as Christ was raised up 
from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, so we also 
having been raised up from our burial, should lead a new life. 
For if we have become like Christ as to his death, that is, if, as he 
died /or sin, we have died to sin; we shall be also like him as to 
his resurrection; that is, as he arose to a new and heavenly life, 
so shall we lead a new and holy life. This obviously follows from 
what we know ; namely, that as Christ was crucified, so our inward 
carnal man has been subjected to a moral crucifixion for the de- 
struction of our sinful propensities, so that we might no more be in 
subjection to sin. For a person, who has departed this life, who is 
dead, is freed from the temptations and sins of the present life. 
Now if we have died to sin, as Christ died for sin, we believe that 
as he arose to a new life, we shall also lead a new life ; knowing 
that Christ, having been raised up from the dead, dieth no more; 
death hath no longer dominion over him. For in that he died, he 
died on account of sin once for all, so as to destroy its power; but 
in that he liveth, he liveth in respect to God, so as to advance hia 

8 



86 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

glory. In like manner also consider ye yourselves dead in respect 
to sin, but alive in respect to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord . 

The design of the apostle in these verses was, to meet 
an objection which might be raised against the state- 
ments of the preceding chapter. In that chapter, he 
had largely shown that the grace of God vastly super- 
abounds over the sins of men ; and that the abounding 
of sin had proved an occasion of the superabounding of 
divine grace. If this be the case, some one might say, 
may we not still go on to sin, so that God's grace may- 
still more abundantly be exhibited ? The apostle's reply 
is very simple. It consists of two parts ; 1. The inter- 
nal character of Christians forbids such an objection ; 
they are dead to the injlucnce of sin. 2. Their external 
profession of Christianity opposes it; by their very bap- 
tism they have, as being dead to sin, symbolically been bu- 
ried and raised up again, thus making an acknowledg- 
ment, that, as Christ was buried and rose again to a 
heavenly life, so they, as his followers, having by bap- 
tism been buried and raised again, were bound to lead a 
new, a spiritual life. 

It is contended, that the burying, mentioned by the 
apostle, is not an external one, but an internal, a moral 
burying; and that this phrase, we are buried, is used 
only to express more strongly the idea of having become 
dead. This opinion seems effectually o])posed by the 
circumstance, that the burying is performed by baptism^ 
an external rite. The prepot:ition, wliich is here em- 
ployed in the original, leads us to this view. It is 8iu 
Tov fi(t7TTl(Tjii(cTo; BY boptism that we are buried, not at 
our baptism. It is not, that baptism merely furnished 
a suitable occasion for showing our being wholly dis- 
inclined to sin, so that, when we j)rofessed Christianity, 
we might be said to be buried in respect to sin ; but 



ROMANS, G : 3 , 4 . 87 

baptism is here represented as the very thing, the very 
instrument, or, more proper! v, the very act, by which, or, 
BY MEANS OF which, >v c were buried. Tlie apostle 
seems to present two thinj^s, a death and a burial, which 
are clearly kept distinct ; and the burial is an external 
thinji^, consisting in tlie fact, that we have been baptized 
into an acknowledgment of Christ's death. To continue 
in sin would, then, be inconsistent with our character 
and our religious profession. It does not seem an ade- 
quate representation of the apostle's language to say, 
that having become dead to sin, we have completed this 
work of moral dying by publicly professing Christianity 
and promising at baptism to renounce sin ; so that by 
our consummating the work of dying we may consider 
ourselves as buried. He seems to say, that besides hav- 
ing become dead to sin, we have also been buried by 
baptism into an acknowledgment of Christ's death. 

This very obvious view is too much disregarded. If 
the apostle had simply said, we are dead to sin and are 
buried in respect to it, or we are dead and buried in 
respect to sin, his language would require a different 
interpretation. But the apostle himself explains what 
he means by burying, when he adds, hy baptism, diu rov 
^amla/uuTo;. It is with much pleasure I here avail my- 
self of the language of my respected colleague, Prof 
Chase, in a note attached to his sermon on the Design 
of Baptism. 

" Buried with him by baptism. The language is figu- 
rative. The word au^erucfijuev means ' we were interred, 
or covered up in a grave, or laid in a tomb,^ or buried 
with Christ. How? By baptism, the apostle adds; 
and this addition modifies the figure, and makes the 
sense as clear as it is possible for express words to make 
it. In, or by baptism, then, Paul and the Christians 



88 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

whom he addresses were hurled. To be crucified to the 
world, or dead to sin, is the character of the Christian ; 
but to be buried with Christ by baptism, is the appoint- 
ed emblematical profession of that character. The 
apostle does not teach that believers are crucified with 
Christ, or are dead with Christ, or possess a mortified 
temper, hy baptism. To have such a state of soul, to be 
dead in respect to sin, is one thing ; and to be buried 
with Christ by baptism^ is quite a difterent thing ; for 
this is external, whereas the other is internal. The one 
is a sign ; the otlier, the thing signified. It is only by 
confounding what the apostle has kept distinct, that 
there can be any mistake concerning this passage."* 

But let us examine in detail the arguments by which 
Prof. Stuart would show, that the burying here men- 
tioned, has no necessary reference to the immersion of 
the early Christians. 



"' It is important to bear in mind, that the burying is performed 
by baptism, and thus refers to an external act. This thought will 
remove the obscurity which Scott's commentary throws around 
this passage. In attempting to show that the words, we art buried 
icilh him by baptism, do not require immersion as necessary to bap- 
tism, he says, ' wc are also said to be crucified with Christ, and 
circumcised with him.' Mr. Scott, I apprehend, has fallen into an 
error as to the last expression, ' circumcised with him,' that is, 
Christ. I have searched in vain for this expression in the Scrip- 
tures. As to the expression, ' we are crucified with Christ,' it is 
substantially correct. But the verse in the Epistle to the Romans, 
now under consideration, does not contain the simple expression, 
' we are buried with him ;' but, * we are buried with him by baptism/ 
Now to make the other passage parallel with this it ought to be, 
not simply, ' crucified with Christ;' but, • put to death with Christ 
by crucifixion.' A comparison of" these forms of expression clearly 
shows, that something peculiarly significant was intended by em- 
ploying the phrase ' buried with him by baptism.' 



ROMANS, 6:3, 4. 89 

Tlie first argument is, ' tliat in the verse before us 
there is a plain antithesis; one so plain tliat it is impos- 
sible to overlook it. Tf now uvti ru<fi,iier ^we are buried 
ipit/i] is to be interpreted in a phi/sical way, i. e. as mean- 
ing baptism in a physical sense, where is the correspond- 
ing physical idea, in the opposite part of the antithesis 
or comparison? Plainly there is no such physical idea 
or reference in the other part of the antithesis. The 
resurrection there spoken of, is entirely a moral, spiritual 
one ; for it is one which Christians have already experi- 
enced during the present life.'* 

In regard to this, I observe, that there is a corres- 
ponding physical idea in the opposite part of the antith- 
esis. It is not, indeed, expressed in words, but so far 
as the thought is concerned, the antithesis is complete. 
We have been buried in a baptismal grave, that we should 
lead a nctc life. The imagination instantly supplies the 
idea of a resurrection ; having been raised up from this 
grave, we should lead a new life. I take it for granted, 
as does the commentary,! that in the fourth verse, the 
word iye^divreg [having been raised up'\ is implied. This 
word renders the antithesis complete, as to verbal ex- 
pression ; we have been buried icith him by baptism, that, 
having been raised up, we should lead a new life. On the 
one hand there is a moral death and an emblematical 
burial ; on the other, an emblematical resurrection and a 
holy life. 

But the commentary says, that the resurrection here 
spoken of, ' is entirely a moral, spiritual one ; for it is 
one which Christians have already experienced during 
the present life.' True ; this resurrection is, or rather 
was in the case of the early Christians, experienced in 



* P. 328. t P. 329. 

8* 



90 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

the present life. This circumstance, however, is of no 
weight in showing that the resurrection is a spiritual 
one ; for a physical resurrection from the baptismal 
grave may be experienced in the present life, as well 
as a spiritual resurrection from the death in trespasses 
and sins. And that the resurrection implied in this verse 
is a physical one from the baptismal burial, is sustain- 
ed by the passage in the Epistle to the Colossians, 
2 : 12 ; Buried icith him in baptism, wherein also ye are 
risen loith him through the faith of the operation of God, 
who hath raised him from the dead : that is,- by your faith 
in the power of God who raised up Christ from the dead, 
ye have in baptism been buried with him, and risen with 
him. It was in baptism, then, a physical act, they had 
been both buried and raised up with Christ.^ 

* I know, that by thus referring the being hurled and the being 
raised up, to the word baptism, I must understand the words Iv (a 
\}oherein'\ as referring to Sarcjla^iuTV [baptism] ; and I perceive 
that Prof. Stuart on page 327, gives the following translation ; 
" with whom also ye have been raised up (or have arisen) by faith, 
through the power of God, who raised him from the dead." But 
his translation of these words is very questionable. In the first 
place, the antithesis between crvvjawivrsg [being buried icith'} and 
avPi]yiQd},xs [ye are risen wzf/i], would suggest that gy o5 [^cAem/t] 
has the same connection with the latter verb, that ^v TfJ Bamiaumi 
\in baptism] has with the former participle. In the second place, 
it is plain that avrd) [him] is understood after crvpjjvefjdtjTS [ye 
have arisen witW]. Supply avrco after this verb, and it becomes 
very obvious that Ip co [toherein'] relates to ^aTnlujuaTi Ibaptisvi]- 
This view of the passage is the same as our common version pre- 
sents j and our version corresponds, in this instance, with the an- 
cient Syriac. Storr, also, in his expository dissertation on the 
Epistle to the Colossians, translates the passage in a similar man- 
ner. His translation is the following : Sepulti cum eo in baptismo, 
in quo etiara una cum illo a mortuis excitati estis. Opuscula Aca- 
demica. Vol. 2, p. 157. 

The meaning of this whole passage may thus be expressed ; vs. 



ROMANS, 6:3, 4. 91 

Second argument. ' Nothing can be plainer, than that 
the word avyetuquj/ney [we are buried with] in Rom. 6 : 4, 

11, 1*2. ' By whom ye liave bee» circumcised with an internal cir- 
cumcision, namely, tlie laying aside of carnal propensities, by the 
circumcision which Christ enjoins, having, as an indication of this, 
been buried in baptism as he was buried ; wherein also [in which 
rite] ye have through faith in the power of God, or through belief 
of the power of God, who raised him from the dead, been raised 
up as he was raised up.' This passage and the similar one in the 
Epistle to the Romans, very beautifully harmonize, and unite in 
showing an internal death to sin experienced by believers, and an 
outward emblematical burial which indicates their faith in the 
power of God as manifested in the resurrection of Christ from the 
dead. 

The translation which I have proposed of Col. 2 : 12, is some- 
wliat different from that which Prof. Stuart has given on the page 
above mentioned, namely, 'ye have been raised up by faith, through 
the power of God, who raised him from the dead.' A comparison of 
this version with the original will certainly make one pause before 
he adopts it. The word rendered power is not so connected with 
the word rendered raised up, as to warrant the expression, ye have 
been raised up through the poicer of God; and yet his version con- 
veys tills idea. The word rendered power is immediately connect- 
ed, in the genitive case, with the word rendered/ai</i. According- 
ly in another place, Prof. Stuart renders the verse thus ; " IVe [ye] 
have arisen with him by faith wrought bv the power of God." 

That the original is capable of this latter version, no one can 
doubt who is acquainted with Hebrew usage, and with that of New 
Testament Greek, in regard to the genitive case. This case is 
used with very great latitude, and requires, in conformity with the 
connection and circumstances, a great diversity of renderings. 
But are the circumstances and the connection, in the present in- 
stance, such as to require a departure from the more usual and the 
appropriate meaning of the genitive ? I think not; and according 
ly I translate the VQfse without any departure from the appropri- 
ate meaning of this case ; or with so slight a departure that it 
scarcely deserves to be named ; ye have been raised up with him 
through belief of the poxcer of God tcho raised him vp ; or, ye have 
been raised vp with him through belief, or faith, in the power of God 
who raised him up. 



92 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

is equivalent in sense to the word uneduvofiev [we he dead, 
Eng. version] in v. 8.' * 

I reply by acknowledging, that to me this is not plain. 
There are two methods of satisfactorily accounting for 
the use of the expression if we he dead, in the 8th verse. 
I. The apostle, having stated that Christians had be- 
come dead to sin, and had been buried by baptism, may 
have afterwards used the word dead, as including all 
that had taken place, internally and externally, respect- 
ing their moral death. They needed not to be remind- 
ed on every occasion, that they had also been symboli- 
cally buried. Being buried is so intimately connected 
with being dead, that the expression hcing dead, would, 
especially in such a connection as this, recall the other 
idea. 2. But there is another very sufficient reason for 
the apostle's using this term. The preceding verse, the 
seventh, had presented a new thought; namely, a person 
who has departed this life, who is dead, has no longer a 
connection with the sins of this hfe. Now, applying 
this thought, the apostle speaks of Christians as dead 
and as having no more connection with the sins of their 
former state ; but as living a new life, as Christ is now 
living a heavenly life. It is not then plain, that the 
words if we he dead, in the 8th verse, are equivalent in 
sense to the words we arc huried, in the 4th verse. 

Third argument. 'The image or figure of immersion, 
baptism, is nowhere else in Scripture employed as a sym- 
bol of hurial in the grave.'' t 

Reply. This argument would have force, could it be 
shown, that a writer must employ the same comparison 
more than once. Is it necessary that a certain mode of 
viewing a subject, or a certain comparison in regard to 

* P. 329. t P. 330. 



R o M A N s , 6 : 3 , 4 , 93 

it, should be repeated, in order to show what the writer 
intended ? Is it not enough that the comparison, or the 
figure, he apt and striking? I think, however, the same 
inuigc is employed in Col. 2 : 1'2. The remarks on this 
last mentioned text, in the commentary, are not con- 
vincing. And although the passage in Colossians might, 
if it stood entirely alone, be explained otherwise than as 
referring to a baptismal burial, since the words in baptism 
might, as Prof. Stuart suggests, be understood as mean- 
ing at baptism, yet even this cannot be said when we com- 
pare it with the parallel passage in Romans, where the 
preposition diu, bi/, by means of, is used. And here it be- 
comes us to remember that important principle in inter- 
pretation, that of two parallel passages, if one contains 
an ambiguous expression, while the other is free from 
ambiguity, the former must be explained by the latter 
unambiguous passage. 

Prof. Stuart adds, ' Nor can I think it [immersion] a 
very natural symbol of burial. The obvious import of 
washing loith water, or immersing in water, is, that it is 
symbolical of purity, cleansing, purification. But how 
will this aptly signify burying in the grave, the place of 
corruption, loathesomeness and destruction ?"* 

I reply ; if we do not carry the comparison beyond 
just limits, immersion is certainly a natural symbol of 
burial ; and has commended itself as such, to persons of 
all classes and of all degrees of mental cultivation. 
There is the being placed underneath the surface of the 
water, as the body of Christ was placed underneath the 
surface of the earth. If one insists, that a burial must 
signify corruption, loathesomeness and destruction, then 
I may say, tliough the demand is unreasonable, that in 

* r. 330. 



94 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

our baptismal burial we emblematically deposit our 
moral corruption, and when we rise from this grave, we 
leave our moral loathesomeness behind, and rise to lead 
a new and holy life. 

It is very possible for a person's mind to be so intent 
upon the idea of purity, as indicated by baptism, that 
he will discern in this ordinance no other significancy. 
But the passage which we are now considering, pre- 
sents an additional significancy in baptism. The idea 
of purity is, by no means and never, to be overlooked ; 
in connection, however, with that, baptism is to be 
regarded as reminding us of the manner in which 
•purity is attained, namely, through the death and 
resurrection of Jesus Christ ; and as impressively re- 
minding us, that we too must die to sin, and that we 
must arise to a holy life. Thus, as enforcing the thought 
of purity procured through the death and resurrection of 
Christ, it is a symbolical burial in respect to sin, and a 
symbolical resurrection to a new and holy life ; it is the 
appointed act, by which we profess our subjection to 
Christ who died for sin, who was buried, and who rose 
again to a heavenly life. Thus it is a token of our re- 
cognizing Christ's death, and burial, and resurrection on 
account of sin. 

In the commentary it is asked, ' what else but a moral 
burying can be meant when the apostle goes on to say : 
We are buried icith him [not by baptism only, but] by 
baptism into his death?'* 

The force of this question is not obvious. How the 
addition of its being in reference to the Saviour^s death that 
we are buried by baptism, whether as acknowledging his 
death and resurrection for sin, or as professing a com- 

* P. 330. 



ROM ANS, 6 : 3, 4 . 95 

niunion with him iu deatli to sin — I say, how this addi- 
tion hinders tlie burial frojn meaning our real, physical 
baptism, does not aj)pear. 

It is added in the commentary, ' of course it will not 
be contended, that a literal, physical burying is here 
meant, but only a moral one.' * 

A burying physical in some sort, is here intended ; not 
indeed the burying in a real grave of a dead body, but 
the burying in a baptismal grave of a person who has 
become dead to sin. The expressions here employed, 
seem clearly to show that reference is made to baptism, 
not only, in the language of the commentary, ' because 
when that rite was performed, the Christian promised 
to renounce sin and to mortify all his evil desires, and 
thus to die unto sin, that he might live unto God ;' but 
also, because the submitting to baptism was an acknowl- 
edgment of discipleship to a Saviour who had died on 
account of sin so as to destroy it, and had risen again to 
a heavenly life ; and because baptism was also an emblem 
of the Christian's resemblance to the Saviour as to his 
deaths in that the Christian too has died, not indeed for 
sin, but unto sin ; and of the Christian's resemblance to 
the Saviour, as to his resurrection^ in that the Christian 
too has arisen, not indeed to heavenly glory, but to a 
holy life. 

The author of the commentary concludes by observ- 
ing, ' I cannot see, therefore, that there is any more ne- 
cessary reference here to the modus of baptism, than 
there is to the modus of the resurrection. The one may 
as well be maintained as the other.' t 

In how extensive a sense the word modus [mode] is here 
used, I know not. But it seems plainly the thought of the 



* ?. 330. 1 P. 330. 



96 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

apostle, that as in baptism there is a being placed under- 
neath, so there is a being raised up ; and thus there is 
emblematically indicated in baptism, not only a burial, 
but also a resurrection. Hence he says, ' we, by baptism 
into his death, have been buried with him, or, as he was 
buried ; that as Christ was raised up from the dead, so 
we [having been raised up] should lead a new life.' 
Just so in Col. 2: 12, 'buried with him in baptism, 
wherein, in which rite, or in which emblem, ye are risen 
with him.' The mode of the resurrection is imphed 
here so far as the leaving of the grave, the rising up 
from it, is concerned. There is, in fact, reference both 
to burial and to resurrection ; to the being deposited un- 
derneath, and the being raised up. 

As a conclusion of this already, perhaps, tedious dis- 
cussion, I will produce the views of a few writers who 
cannot be suspected of undue partiality to the sentiments 
which prevail generally among the Baptists. I quote 
from one of the notes attached to Prof. Chase's sermon 
on the Design of Baptism. 

*' Jaspis, in a note on this part of his Latin version of 
the Epistles, acknowledges the truth, though lie after- 
wards makes a feeble attempt to escape from the legiti- 
mate consequence. He says, *Paul in this place alhides 
to the custom then usual, of immersing the whole body ; 
which immersion resembled the laying of a man in a 
sepulchre.' p. 33. 

" The remarks of RosenmnUcr on the same passage, 
are worthy of serious consideration. ' Immersion in the 
water of baptism, and coming forth out of it, was a sym- 
bol of a person's renouncing liis former life, and, on the 

contrary, beginning a new one The learned have 

rightly reminded us, that, on account of this emblemati- 
cal meaning of baptism, the rite of immersion ought to 



iiOM ANs G : 3, 4. '.'' 

have been retained in the Christian church.' See his 
Scholia in Novum Testammtum^ vol. iii. p. 454. 

'» Such, too, was the conviction of Luther, in view d 
tliis ptissage, who, after speaking of baptism as a symbol 
of deatli and resurrection, says, * On this account ! 
could wish that such as are to be baptized, should be 
completely immersed into water, according to the mean- 
ing of the word, ami the signification of the ordinance: 
not because 1 think it necessary, but because it would be 
beautiful to have a full and perfect sign of so perfect and 
full a thing; as also without doubt it was instituted hy 
Christ.' See his work entitled Captivitas Babylonira, in 
the collection Omni. Oprr. M. Luther. Tom. ii. }). 7 (J. 
ed. 155L" 

I dismiss the passage which has occupied me so long, 
by quoting the following remarks of Knapp, in his Lec- 
tures on Christian Theology. Speaking of Rom. 6 : 5?, 
4, and Col. 2 : 12, 13, he thus expresses the apostle's 
idea ; " We are, like Christ, buried as dead persons by 
baptism ; and should arise like him to a new life." He 
adds ; " The image is here taken from baptized persons 
as they were immerged (buried), and as they emerg(d 
(rose again) ; so it was understood by Chrysostom. 
Since immersion has been disused, the full significanrt 
of this comparison is no longer perceived."* 

Having presented his reasons for believing, that tlie 
sixth chapter of the epistle to the Romans furnishes no 
definite information respecting the apostolic mode of 
baptism. Prof. Stuart proposes the following inquiry : 
*' Are there not some circumstances related or imjilied. 
in the passages respecting Christian baptism, which seein 



* Knapp's Theology. By Leonard Woods, Jr. WA 

9 



9o CHRISTIAN B A P T r S ]Vr . 

to render the idea improhable tliat immersion was gene- 
rally, or at least universally practised ? "* 

The following passages are selected by him as pre- 
senting improbabilities ; Acts 2. Acts 10 : 47. 16 : 33. 
22 : 16. I do not deem it important to enter into a state- 
ment of these improbabilities. It would only lead me to 
repeat what has been said again and again, on the one 
side and on the other. Suffice it to say that, in regard 
to all these supposed cases of improbability, the conces- 
sion is fully made by him, that there is nothing which 
utterly forbids the belief that immersion was practised. 
On the first passage brought forward, he says, " How- 
ever, I concede that there are some points here, which 
are left undetermined, and which may serve to aid those 
who differ from me, in replying to tliese remarks. It is 
true that we do not know^ that baptism was performed 
by the apostles only, nor that all the three thousand were 
baptized before the going down of the sun. The work 
may have extended into the evening; and so, many being 
engaged in it, and more time being given, there was a 
possibility that the work in question should be per- 
formed, although immersion was practised."? 

On Acts 10 : 47, after proposing the somewhat licen- 
tious interpretation, ' Can any one forbid that icatrr 
should he brought in, and these persons baptized;' he 
savs, "I admit that another meaning is not necessarily 
excluded, which would accord with the practice of im- 
mersion."! 

On Acts 16 : 33, speaking of a br.ih in the jail, ami 
representing " such accommodations in the prisons of 
:incient days" as " very improbable" (though such a con- 
venience might be granted to the jailor's family, if not to 

* r. 33-^. t F. 333. t P. 334. 



ALLEHED IMPROBABILITIES. 90 

Viis prisoners, and his liousc would seem to have heen in 
the immediate vicinity, at least, of the jirison,) Prof. 
Stuart }'et says, " the possibility of this cannot be 
denied."* 

A careful examination t)f the sacred writer's account, 
MjjT^ests no improbability as to this instance of bap- 
tism. The following appears to have been the order of 
events. Paul and Silas were thrust into the inner prison ; 
an earthquake occurred; the jailor sprang in and fell 
down before Paul and Silas ; he brought them out ; 
they spake to him and to all that were in his house; he 
then washed their stripes : baptism was next performed ; 
after which he brought them into his house. After in- 
struction, then, had been given in the house^ baptism was 
performed ; and after baptism, the company returned to 
the house. Did they not leave the house, in order that 
baptism might be administered ? And why did the 
administration of baptism require them to leave the 
house ? 

On Acts 22 : 16, after mentioning washing or ivashing 
off as the manner of the baptism, he observes, "Still I 
acknowledge that this is not a necessary conclusion ; 
for bathing or immersion would produce the effect of 
washing q^."t 

The passage, 1 Cor. 10 : 2, And laere cdl baptized 
unto 3Ioses in the cloud and in the sea, is next men- 
tioned, as seeming *' of necessity to imply, that immer- 
:*ion is not essential to the idea of baptism. "| Still, after 
stating the whole case, he leaves the passage with this 
remark ; " Yet as the language must evidently be figur- 
ative in some good degree, and not literal, I do not see 
how, on the whole, Ave can make less of it, than to sup- 

* P, 335. t P. 335- t P. 335. 



f 00 CHRISTIAN BAVTISyi . 

pose that it has a tacit reference to the idea of surround- 
ing in some waj or other."^-' 

" Tlie suggestion has sometimes been made, that the 
Israehtes were i^prinklcd hy the cloud and by the sea, and 
tliis was the baptism, wliich Paul meant to designate. 
But," says Prof. Stuart, " the cloud on this occasion, 
was not a cloud of rain ; nor do we find any intimation 
that tlie waters of the Red Sea sprinkled the children of 
Israel at this time."t 

It has always been surprizing to me, that this passage 
should be resorted to, in opposing immersion as requis- 
ite for baptism. The language is evidently figurative, 
and is intended to represent the Israelites, not as being 
literally baptized^ but as submitting themselves to the 
special authority and guidance of Moses, as Christians, 
when baptized, submit themselves avowedly to Christ. 
It has reference to a period, which might justly be re- 
garded as an era, or starting point, in their history ; a 
time, when they made a very signal surrender of them- 
selves to Moses as the servant of God. Some of the 
circumstances connected with this surrender of them- 
selves to Moses, are remarkably similar to the circum- 
stances connected with the public surrender of believers 
to Christ, as their leader and deliverer. To the Israel- 
ites might be applied, in a figurative manner, language 
which, in its literal application, belonged to Christians. 
The explanation of the iigure is perfectly easy. By 
baptism. Christians avow their confidence in Christ, 
their choice of him and their subjection to him, in all the 
ojffices which he sustains. Now, if a connnunity had 
yielded themselves uj) to some leader, placing confidence 
in him and professing subjection to him, and especially 

» P. 330. \ P. 33<1 



ALLEGED IMPROBABILITIES. lOl 

»f, at the time of thus yielding: tliemselves to him, any 
circumstances had occurred simihir to those in wliich 
Christians professed their suhjection to Christ, tliey might 
very happily be said to have been baptized unto, or into, 
that leader. The Jewish community sustained such a 
relation to Moses as has here been mentioned, and a 
circumstance of the kind alluded to, took place. As 
Christians, in making their profession of allegiance to 
Christ, are surrounded with water, so the Israelites, wlien 
signally showing their allegiance to Moses, by passing 
through the Red Sea, were surrounded with water. 
What though it was not actually over their heads ? 
What though they were not touched by the water 1 Yet, 
•who feels that this figurative language is at all unsuita- 
ble, or difficult to be understood ? And which is the 
proper method of interpretation ? — to employ this con- 
fessedly allusive mention of baptism for a satisfactory 
explanation of the Christian ordinance ? or, to learn 
what the Christian ordinance was, and from that to as- 
certain what the allusive application of it means ? 

" That washiug was at least one method, and perhaps 
even the more ordinary one of practising baptism, may 
be thought," says Prof. Stuart, ** to find some support in 
such passages as the following."* Eph. 5 : 2G, that he 
might . . . cleanse it with the washing of water ; Titus 
3:5, by the washing of regeneration ; Ileb. 10 : 22, 
havi?ig . . . our bodies washed with pure water. But in 
regard to them all, he acknowledges, there is nothing 
inconsistent with immersion, inasmuch as washing, or 
cleansing, is an eff*ect of immersion. Such passages pre- 
sent no difficulty, when it is considered that the sacred 
writer had principal respect to the effect, represented 

' P. 336. 
9* 



102 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

by baptism. Besides, tbe Greek word employed in 
these passages is the word which rather designates 
bathing, umshing of the person or body, than a partial 
ujashing, as of the hands, or feet, or face. 

In this connection a remark occurs, which deserves a 
passing notice. Prof. Stuart says, that " baths are not 
usually adapted to such a purpose"* as total immer- 
sion. If this remark was intended to be applied to 
places for bathing, as they were prepared in the time." 
of the apostles, it is not only destitute of evidence, but 
it is against evidence. The conveniences for bathing in 
ancient times, were remarkably am pie. t 

Thus closes the discussion concerning the circum- 
gtances attending the administration of baptism, as re- 

* P. 337. 

t 1 here introduce on account which may illustrate the use of a 
bath for total immersion. While my colleague, Prof. Chase, was 
in the city of Rome, during the month of March 1833, he became 
acquainted with an English gentleman, whose thoughts had been 
seriously directed to the subject of religion, and who '•' 'nad made 
up his mind to dissent from the ecclesiastical establishment of 
England." " I called upon him," says Prof. Chase ; " and an ac- 
quaintance ensued, that soon encouraged me to regard him as a 
suitable subject for baptism. He had for a considerable time de- 
sired it ; for, b}^ reading the Scriptures, he had been convinced of 
the duty of believers, in this respect. There was water near, in a 
spacious and woll-furnislied bath ; and he could say, as the Ethio- 
pian traveller did to Philip, ' What doth hinder me to be baptized ?' 
The case was a special one ; ;;nd it was clear that it ought to be 
met in a corresponding manner. Accordingly, a time was appoint- 
ed ; the use of the bath was secured ; and, at the allotted hour, the 
service was performed with an liumble reliance on the approbation 
of that almighty and compassionate Saviour, who was perfectly 
acquainted with the intolerance of the Papal Government, and with 
all the circumstances." American Baptist Magazine, \'ol. 13 
p. 344. 



I 



RESULT. 103 

lated in the New Testament, and concerning the refer- 
ences to baptism. The conchision which Prof. Stuart 
tliinks justilied is, th:it the mcjdc of the ordinance is not 
determined by tlie sacred writers. While lie concedes, thai 
none of tlie circumstances related, or imphed, absolute- 
ly determine that ininiersion was not practised, yet he 
has a ^^ persuasion^' tliat some of the circumstances "ren- 
der it improbable that immersion was always practis- 
ed ;" and considers " it as quite plain, that none of the 
circumstantial evidence, thus far, proves immersion to 
have been exclusively the mode of Christian baptism."* 

That such would be his conclusion, every one might 
anticipate from his statements concerning the meanings 
of the verb translated baptize^ and from the manner in 
which he disposes of the apostle's reasoning in the sixth 
chapter of the epistle to the Romans. But if he has 
erroneously stated the meanings of 3a7iT[';oj [baplizoj^ 
and if his manner of treating the passage just men- 
tioned is incorrect, then there is required a different 
conclusion. Besides, it is not reasonable to demand, 
that all the circumstantial evidence should, by itself con- 
sidered, ^roue immersion to have been exclusively prac- 
tised. It is enough, if that evidence does not lead the 
mind clearly to any other act, if it is in perfect accord- 
ance with immersion, and if it thus coincides with the 
proper meaning of the word used to express the ordi- 
nance. 

I may ask, then, in view of the examination to which 
his positions have been subjected, what is the real state 
of the case 1 It is this. The word, which expresses 
the Christian ordinance, employed in its proper, ordina- 
ry meaning, has a certain sense; in all the places, in 



P. 337 



104 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM* 

which this word occurs, there is nothing which plainly 
requires us to lose sight of this sense ; in all the places, 
in which the administration of the rite is mentioned, 
there is nothing which requires us to depart from thif 
sense ; in certain passages, the sacred writer has connect- 
ed the mention of baptism with such a descriptive word, 
and has connected such instruction with baptism, as to 
show that this proper, ordinary meaning of the word 
was present to his mind. What conclusion now ought 
we to draw ? If the mode of the Christian ordinance, 
as represented in the New Testament, be not determined, 
on what 7ncre philological conclusion can we, without 
hesitation, depend? May I not say, let not the apostolic 
practice, as to baptism, considered as a mevG philological 
question, that is, considered merely with reference to the 
language employed, be treated as " without form and 
void." If it must be regarded as an undefined thing, 
subject to the prejudice, the convenience, the caprice 
of any one and every one, let this view be exhibited ; not 
as furnished by philology, but as jiroceeding from an 
entirely different source, and resting on considerations 
aside from the usage of language. 

I forbear to make any comment on the somewhat se- 
vere remark, with which Prof Stuart closes this part of his 
article ; namely, that, if any one maintains a conclusion 
contrary to that which he has expressed, he " can hardly 
suppress the conviction," that '*it must be either because 
he is unable rightly to estimate the nature or power of 
the Greek language; or because he is influenced in some 
measure by party-feeling ; or else because he has looked 
at the subject in only a partial manner, without exam- 
ining it fully and thoroughly."* 

* P. 337. 



J K WISH I> IIOS i: I,YT P: -B A PTl SM . IOj 

v^ 'S. Jcifiish Prosrfi/fc-Baptism. 

It Ikis I)C(M1 customary with Pcdobaptist writers, to 
(•(iniiect the subject of Jewish pro.selyte-baptism with tlic 
t^ubject of Christian baptism. It came to be a practice 
amuiijr the Jews (thout,^h not required by tlie laws of Mo- 
ses), that when a Gentile fully embraced their religion, 
besides being circumcised, he immersed hiniself; a cer- 
emony deemed necessary for complete purification. 
As the ceremony, here named, was confessedly an im- 
mersion of the whole person, and might thus be consid- 
ered as strengthening the argument for immersion as 
essential to Christian baptism. Prof. Stuart discusses 
anew, as his third particular inquiry, the long agitated 
question, whether Jewish proselyte-baptism was prac- 
tised before the time of John the Baptist, or whether it 
commenced after his time, ^yhatever may be the fact, 
as to the time Avhen Jewish proselyte-baptism was in- 
troduced, that is, whether it was introduced before the 
time of John the Baptist, or shortly after, its bearing on 
the question now under discussion is the same. For if 
it commenced previously to the time of John, it would, 
as being confessedly immersion, be altogether favorable 
to the belief that such too was the manner of John and 
of the apostles. And if it commenced not long after 
the time of John, and was adopted by the Rabbins in 
imitation of his baptism, as Dr. Owen and Carpzov be- 
lieved, and as Prof. Stuart thinks is not improbable,* 
still it would, as being confessedly immersion, be favora- 
ble to the same belief It is, then, of no importance so 
far as the present subject is concerned, in what manner 
the question, as to the date of Jewish proselyte-baptism, 
is determined. 

* P. 354. 



106 CHRISTIAN BAPI'ISM. 

After a protracted discussion Prof. Stuart conclude?, 
" that we have sufficient evidence of the fact, that such 
baptism was practised at, or not long after, the time when 
the second temple loas destroy ed^ * 

The origin of proselyte-baptism among the Jews is 
involved in much darkness. Probability on this topic- 
it may be a high degree of probability — is all we can 
hope to attain. If historical evidence carries us back 
as far as the time when the second temple was destroy- 
ed, A. D. 70, and there fails us, yet the circumstances of 
the Jesvish nation would render it unlikely, that the rite 
had been recently adopted. The opinion, " that the 
Rabbins introduced proselyte-baptism in imitation of 
the popular baptism of John," t is liable to objection ; 
the Jews would hardly adopt a distinguishing rite of a 
teacher, or a sect, towards whom they bore ill will. 

" The learned controversies respecting Jewish prose- 
lyte-baptism have been ably examined by the late Dr. 
E. G. Bengel, Professor and Superintendent of the 
Theological Seminary at Tubingen ; and it is probable, 
that the middle course which he has adopted, will com- 
mend itself, for the most part, to the approbation of the 
candid and intelligent. He says, ' Only we may sup- 
pose this as probable, that it [proselyte-baptism] first 
came into use gradually, when men had generally be- 
gun to increase the religious ceremonies prescribed in 
the Mosaic law by many traditional additions ; therefore 
in the period after the return of the nation from the 
Babylonish exile ; that accordingly it may be considered 
so far a Pharisaical addition, as the adding of new 
observances to what was prescribed in the written law, 
belongs especially to the character of the Pharisees : 

* P. 352. t P. 354. 



JEWISH P R S E L V T E - B A P T I S M . 1 Ot 

althou^li this addition, perhaps, may luive been intro- 
duced before a Pliarisean sect had become so formed 
as to be opposed to other i)arties . ... It was reckoned in 
the same class with all those other lustrations to ivhich they 

were accustomed It was not regarded as a principal 

things nor as an essentially necessary part of proselyte 

consecration But the entirely changed condition to 

which the Jews found tliemselves reduced by the over- 
throw of their state and of their temple,' (A. D. 70) ' led 
at length, as it seems, to new and finally more fixed de- 
crees and regulations on this subject.' See his Exam- 
ination Ueber das Alter der Judischen Proselyten taufe. 
p. 115."* 

If this account of Jewish proselyte-baptism, as exist- 
ing previously to the time of John, be said to favor the 
opinion that John drew his baptism from an existing 
practice among the Jews, and thus to oppose the Sa- 
viour's implication, that the baptism of John was from 
heaven. Matt. 21 : 24 — 27 ; the answer is easy. John 
did not practise baptism, as Jewish proselyte-baptism, 
or as a species of that baptism ; he was understood as 
administering this rite on very different principles and 
for very diff'erent purposes from those, to which the 
Jews had reference. He baptized the Jews themselves, 
in connection with their professed repentance, and with 
reference to the Messiah, and was thus forming, from 
among the Jews, a sort of new religious community. 
What though as to the mere fact of immersion^ his 
practice corresponded to what they had previously 
seen ? There were so many points of difference be- 
tween his baptism and that with which they had been 

* Prof. Chase's sermon on the Design of Baptism; Appendix, 
Note A. 



1 08 C II R I S T I A X B A P T i S M . 

acquainted, that they woulil be in tio danger of reonard- 
ing it as a continuation, or as a mere modification, of 
tlieir baptism ; nor would they necessarily regard him 
as drawing" his idea of baptism from what the Rabbins 
liad countenanced or enjfjined. His baptism was by a 
Sj)ccial divine api)ointment, and migiit be so Jiccountcd, 
lliough in one respect it corresponded to theirs, v, hich 
could boast no better origin than as being a superstitions 
appendage to the Mosaic law. 

It may also be objected, that the existence of proselyte- 
l)aptism before the time of John is inconsistent with the 
question, put to him by the messengers whom the Phari- 
sees sent, as recorded in John 1 ; 25, " Why baptizest 
thou, then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither 
that prophet?"* But, it may be asked in reply, what was 
more natural, than that w^hen the rulers saw a man of 
distinguished holiness, thus baptizing Jews, and forming 
a sort of religious community out of the nation which 
regarded itself as a holy people, what was more natural, 
than that they should suspect he was either the Messiah 
himself, or one specially commissioned as his servant ? 
They had a right to expect, that when the Messiah 
should appear, he would institute new laws, and in va- 
rious ways assert his own authority. What these new- 
laws would be, and what would be the ways in which he 
would assert his authority, had not been revealed to 
them. Here was a man establishing new practices with 
reference to the Jews themselves, and \ery extensively 
influencing the people ; a man too, whom they could 
not but reverence for the sanctity of his life. H7/y nxr- 
TizEST thou thru, if thou he not the Christ, nor Elias, nor 
that prophet, would be a very natural inquiry, even though 

* P. 353. 



I 



JEWISH P R O S F: L Y T E - n A P T I S M . 109 

proselytc-baj)tisin had been practised, and even though 
they had never before tliouglit that the Messiah, when 
he shouhl appear, would baptize his disciples. 

That they had so definite notions about the Messiah's 
office, as to think beforehand that he would institute the 
ordinance of baptism, remains to be shown. That the 
passages mentioned by Prof. Stuart,* Isa. 12 : 3. 44 : 
:{. Ezek. 86 : 25. Zech. 13 : 1, as those from which the 
.Tews might have formed such an opinion, give no just 
foundation for such an opinion, a bare inspection of them 
is enough to show. So far then, as probability and tlic 
earliest notices of baptism in the New Testament are 
concerned, I see no vahd objection to the supposition 
that Jewish pvoselyte-baptism was practised before the 
time of John the Baptist ; only, if it did exist, it must be 
regarded as an unwarranted, superstitious addition to 
the Mosaic statutes. 

I know what use has been made by Pedobaptist wri- 
ters, of the possible, or probable, or as they have often 
regarded it, certain fact that proselyte-baptism w^as per- 
formed among the Jewsbefure the Christian era; name- 
ly, that it has been used as a starting point in the de- 
fence of infant baptism. And I know that some Bap- 
tist writers, as well as some distinguished Pedobaptists, 
have denied the early practice of proselyte-baptism 
among the Jews. But neither of these things ought to 
blind us to the light of evidence or of probability ; and 
still further, if any Christians choose thus intimately 
to connect their proof of what they practise as a divine 
ordinance with the superstitious practices of the Jews, 
practices, too, the antiquity of which is so much a matter 



10 



Ho CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

of disputation, on themselves be the responsibility of de- 
serting the plain, beaten path of Holy Scripture. 

§ 4. "J/or/e of Baptism in (he carhj Chrisfimi 
ClmrchesJ'^ 

"We come now to inquire, What was the mode of Bap- 
tism practised hy the chiirchrs in the early ages of Chris- 
tianity^ and AFTER the times of the Apostles.'^ 

That it was imijiersion, Prof. 8tuart renders clear by 
a sutficieiit number of extracts from early v. riters. 
These extracts are made from the Pastor of Hermasr 
one of ihe earliest uninspired remains after the times of 
the apostles, from Justin Martyr, who flourished in thr 
second century, Tertulhan who died A. D. 220, Chry- 
sostom, Ambrose, Augnstine, Dionysius Areopagita, 
Gregorj^ Nyssen, Damascenus, and several other?^. 
After exhibiting these testimonies, he thus proceeds ; 
" But enough. ^ It is,' says August! (Denkv/. VII. p> 
216), * a tliing made out,' viz. the ancient practice of 
immersion. So indeed all the writers wiio have thor- 
oughly investigated this subject, conclude. I know of 
no one usage of ancient times, v/hich seems to be more 
clearly and certainly made out. I cannot see how it i* 
possible for any candid man who examines the subject, 
to deny this."* 

There is also presented another extract from the same 
work of Augusti, in which is stated the result to which 
F. Brenner, a Roman Catholic writer, came in view of 
historical Aicts ; namely, "Thirteen hundred years v. a.* 
baptism generally and ordinarily performed by the im- 
mersion of a man under water ; and only in extraordi- 
nary cases, was sprinkling or affusion permitted. These 



I 



* P. 359. 



HISTORIC V I. \- I K W . Ill 

latter nietlKuls of baptism were called in (jiieilioii, ami 
<'veii prohibited.'"* 

Ai^aiii ; " III the work of John I'loyor on Cold Ijatliinji. 
p. 50, it is ineiitionod, tbat the English church practised 
immrrsion down to the beginning of the seventeenth cen- 
tury ; when a change to the method of sprinkling grad- 
ually took place. As a confirmation of this, it may be 
mentioned, that the first Liturgy in 1547 enjoins a ti'ine 
immersion, in case the child is not sickly : Augnsti, ut 
i?upra, p. 229.'-^ 

The oriental church, too, that is, the Greek church, 
It is mentioned, has always continued to preserve im- 
mersion <' even down to the present time."t 

That such was the practice in the early churches. 
Prof. Stuart considers as decided also by the fact, that 
during a certain period, persons in order to be baptized 
were divested of all their garments and were baptized in 
a state of complete nakedness ; | a practice, not to be 
traced, of course, to the New Testament, and not men- 
tioned by the earliest writers, but originating, with many 
other perversions and corruptions, in ignorance, or su- 
perstition, or some strange waywardness which would 
not be content with an adherence to the simple guidance 
of God's word. To this same prolific source, doubtless, 
nnist trinr immersion be traced; that is, the immersing 
of the candidate three times. 

From this general practice, " there were cases of ex- 
ception allowed, now and then." " Persons in extreme 
sickness or danger were allowed baptism by afiusion ;"<5> 
for at a very early period, baptism came to be regarded 
as essential to salvation, so that it was considered un- 
safe to go into eternity without it. " ]>ut all such cases 

» P. 3G1. t P. 360. X P. 359. § P, 350 



112 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

were manifestly regarded as exceptions to the common 
usage of the church."* 

There is a remark made by Prof. Stuart in this con- 
nection, which requires a slight notice. Augustine is 
quoted as saying, "After you professed your belief, 
three times did we submerge (demersimus) your heads 
in the sacred fountain." It is then added, " Was it the 
head only? Or did he mean to include with it the 
whole body? Every now and then passages of this na- 
ture occur, which lead one to suspect that total immer- 
sion was not uniform in the early church." f That Au- 
gustine did not mean the head only, but included with 
it the whole body, few, I presume, can feel themselves 
entitled to doubt. Should there be any doubt, it would 
entirely depart after reading, on the same page on which 
Augustine is quoted, an extract from Chrysostom : 
" We, as in a sepulchre, immersing [yMTudvdpuoy^ our 
heads in water, the old man is buried, and sinking dozen 
(^xuTudi); y.uTO)), the lohole is concealed at once ; then as 
we emerge, the new man again rises." 

" In what manner, then," Prof. Stuart asks, " did the 
churches of Christ from a very early period, to say the 
least, understand the word SaTtTl^o) [baptizo], in the New 
Testament ? Plainly, they construed it as meaning im- 
mcrsion. They sometimes even went so far as to forbid 
any other method of administering the ordinance, cased 
of necessity and mercy only excepted." | "We are 
left in no doul^t," he continues, " as to the more gene- 
rally received usage of the Christian Church, down to a 
period several centuries after the apostolic age."| And, 
"that the Greek fathers, and the Latin ones who were 
familiar with the Greek [language], understood the usual 

* P. 359. t F 35«. J P. 3G2. 



I 



SYRIAC VERSION'. 113 

import of the word (^anTlioi, would hardly seem to be 
capable of a denial."* 

This topic closes by mentioning the manner in which 
tiie ancient Syriac version of the New Testament, called 
the Peshito, translates the word ^utxtI'Qok The Peshito 
is the oldest, and is " one of the most faithful and authen- 
tic of all the ancient versions " of the New Testament. 
In this version, Su7tT(';o) is translated by a word which, in 
the opinion of Prof. Stuart, appears to express the idea, 
to stand, to confirm, to establish ; while yet the Syriac 
lann^uage has a word which signifies to plunge, to immerse. 
The conclusion which he thinks almost inevitable from 
this is, that the Syriac " translator did not deem it im- 
portant to designate any particular" manner of the bap- 
tismal rite ; but that " baptism, in the language of the 
Peshito, is simply the rite of confirmation, while the man- 
ner of this is apparently left without being at all ex- 
pressed." t 

In regard to this usage of the Syriac translation, I 
have two remarks to make, which may, at least, show, 
that we are not authorized to draw from it an opinion 
unfavorable to the conclusion, which the original lan- 
guage of the New Testament leads us to adopt. 1. In 
all languages, there are anomalies in the meanings of 
some words, of which no satisfactory account can be 
given. 2. This same Syriac word is employed in pas- 
sages, in which, beyond all doubt, the idea of over- 
whelming is expressed ; namely, Luke 12 : 50. Mark 
10 : 38, 39. 

It may be a satisfaction to the reader, if I add the 
remark which Michaelis, in his edition of Castel's Syriac 
Lexicon, has made respecting this word. After ascrib- 



' P. 3G2. t P. 363 

10* 



114 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

ing to it the raeaniiig, ablutus est, baptizatus est, he di- 
rects the reader to the following note : " In this signifi- 
cation of baptizing, not a few compare [the word] with 
the Hebrew I'^V he stood; so that, to stand maybe to 
stand in the river, and in it to he immersed. To me," he 
proceeds, " it seems more probable, that it is plainly 
different fr. m id;', and that by some change of letters it 
originated from" [an Arabic word which may be expres- 
sed by the following Hebrew letters, ri"2>', and which sig- 
nifies] " ^a submerge, to immerse.* 

^ 5. " Importance of the 3Iade of BajjtismJ'^ 
So far as philology and history are concerned, thin 
discussion might probably be here terminated. I truit 
it is now plain, that no unexceptionable reason has been 
adduced for departing from the appropriate meaning of 
§a7XTi'c,M [baptizo], when it is used in reference to the 
Christian ordinance. But however plain this matter 
may be, when viewed simply in the light of phih.logy 
and of history, are Christians now bonnd to preserve the 
origivMl rite ? 

To this point Prof. Stuart next leads us, as " our 
main question." The question is thus stated, " Is any 
particular mode of applying water in Baptism, essential to 
the performance of this rite ? " t 



* In hac baptizandi significatione confcrunt haud pauci cum Hc- 
braico T0J» strlit, ita lit, stare sit stare in Jlvminc, illogue mergi 
Mihi verisimiliiis, divcrsum plane ab TOr, litcraruinque aliqua 
permutatione ortum ex i X _ ^ C" fn :D T 1 suhmers<rc. ' ' Under 
the word j.iiQ. -b^.^ 

To make this matter plainer, I observe that this Syriac word, 
which may be thus expressed in Hebrew letters, T0|», is derived by 
Michaelis not from the Hebrew word ntv Ac stood, but from the 
Arabic nrj; he immersed. 

t P. 3G3. 



1 



ADHERENCE TO THE PRIMITIVE RITE. 115 

He here introduces a ([uofation from Calvin, in res- 
pect to wliicli he says, " To this opinion I do most fully 
and heartily subscribe." The quotation is this ; " It is 
of no consequence at all, whether the person baptized is 
totally immersed, or whether he is merely sprinkled by 
an aftusion of water. This should be a matter of choice 
to the churches in ditVerent re«rions ; although the 
word baptize signifies to immerse, and the rite of im- 
mersion was practised by the ancient church."* 

This sentence contains the principle on which much 
of the remaining part of the article is founded ; but this 
sentence, in itself considered, labors under the difficulty 
of aissuming the very point at issue. It proceeds on the 
principle that, while immersion is indeed baptism, af- 
fusion, or sprinkling, may also be baptism. In other 
words, it assumes that immersion is only a mode of bap- 
tism, and that atiusion, or sprinkling, is also a mode of 
baptism. But the very point at issue is, whether any 
thing besides immersion is baptism, and consequently 
whether immersion ought to be regarded merely as a 
mode of baptism, or as baptism itself; so that where 
there is not immersion, there is not baptism. If indeed 
the Christian ordinance be, not immersion only, but 
either immersion, or pouring, or sprinkling, or washing, 
or any application of water whatever, then is Calvin's 
remark correct. But it has not yet been satisfactorily 
shown, that pouring, or sprinkling, or any thing be- 
sides immersion, is baptism. 

To the vindication of the sentiment thus advanced by 
Calvin, Prof. Stuart directs his efforts, not of course on 
philological grounds. And throughout his defence, there 
seems to prevail the same assumption as is noticed abtivc 

* P. 3C4. 



116 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

ill Calvin's remark. He defends it by three considera- 
tions. 1. " The rite in question is merely externaV 
2. "No injunction is any where given in the New Tes- 
tament, respecting the manner in which this rite shall 
be performed." 3. " Personal safety and convenience 
often demand that immersion should be dispensed 
with."* 

1. On the first of these reasons, I observe, that though 
baptism is an external rite, and though an external rite 
is not essential to the Christian religion,, yet immersion 
may be essential to the rite itself, and to the conveying 
of the instruction which it is intended to communicate. 
It may not, then, be lawful to substitute something else 
in the ]>lace of that which has been instituted. It may, 
also, be far more important than at first appears, to ad- 
here strictly to the performance of the act which the in- 
stitutor of the rite established. Errors in religion fre- 
q«i!ently enter by slow and imperceptible degrees ; and 
wrong views and wrong practices concerning the ordi- 
nances of the gospel, have been not the least fruitful 
sources of delusion and destruction. The history of 
baptism afibrds abundant evidence of this, and reads us 
a very impressive lesson on the danger of departing 
from the path which our Lord has marked out. Plad 
there been a strict and a simple adherence to what the 
Lord appointed, we never should have heard of unction 
as an appendage to baptism ; or of trine immersion ; or 
of its being required, that persons, when complying with 
this rite, should be divested of their apparel ; to say 
nothing of the fatal delusion, which arose from the sup- 
posed saving eflicacy of baptism. 

•2. In regard to the second reason; nanulv, "no in- 



* ?p. 3G4, 305. 378. 



ADHERENCE TO THE PRIMITIVK RITE. 117 

junction is any wlierc given in the New Testament, re- 
apecting; the manner in wliich this rite shall he perform- 
ed ;" there is no need of such an injunction as is hero 
contemplated. For, (to use language which Prof. Stu- 
art represents another as emph)ying), " the manner of 
tlie rite is involved in the word itself which is used to 
designate it."* 

Prof. Stuart endeavors to destroy the force of this 
reply, by saying that it would prove too much. TJiis he 
attempts to ilhistrate by what he calls a case "of a par- 
allel nature .... the Lord's Supper. The original in- 
stitution of this rite took place at the last passover which 
Jesus and his disciples celebrated in Jerusalem. Ther 
were assembled in an upper room ; Luke 22 : 12. They 
reclined upon the usual sofa or triclinium, on which the 
ancients reposed at their meals ; John 13 : 23, 25. It 
was night when they kept the feast, John 13 : 30. They 
kept it with unleavened bread, for no other was found 
in the houses of the Jews, at the feast of the passover, 
Ex. 12 : 19. The wine which they drank was that of 
Palestine, probably red wine. It was kept in leathern 
bottles, it was served in peculiar vessels. The bread 
was made in a certain particular fashion. The clothes 
of the guests were of a certain form. In a word, all the 
circumstances of the occasion were, in some respect or 
other, dilTerent from those which now accompany the 
administration of the Lord's Supper, Yet Jesus gave 
command respecting this ordinance in the following 
manner : Tins do, in remembrance of me; Luke 22 : 19, 
20. 1 Cor. 1 1 : 24, 25." 

" I ask now," continues Prof. Stuart, " all the advo- 
cates for the literal sense of Su-ttCco), who urge upon th^ 

♦ P. 305. 



118 ClIllISTIAN BAPTISM. 

churches tlie original mode of this rite [baptism], why 
they do not urge upon them in the same manner and for 
the same reason, the literal doing of what Christ com- 
manded as to the sacrament ?"* 

However convincing this may appear to some, I ap- 
prehend there is some looseness in the reasoning. This 
representation does not furnish a parallel case. Seve- 
ral circumstances are here mentioned which attended 
the institution of the Lord's Supper. But the ques- 
tion about baptism has no respect to the circumstances 
attending it. It has respect to the thing itself. Now 
Jesus gave no precepts about the circumstances of bap- 
tism ; and he gave none about the circumstances of the 
Lord's Supper. He commanded to baptize ; this com- 
mand ought to be obeyed. He commanded to partake 
of bread and wine in remembrance of him ; this com- 
nmnd ought to be obeyed. Let any one examine Luke 
t2'2 : 19, 20, and ask, what did the Lord mean when he 
said, This do? Every mind at once replies, that he 
jjaid nothing, and that he meant nothing, about preserve 
mg wine in leathern bottles, about reclining on a triclini- 
um, &c. He enjoined upon his disciples, to eat bread 
and to drink wine in remembrance of him. But should 
any persons do something else with the bread and wine, 
than to eat and drink, or should they employ other sub- 
>tances, or should they employ these, yet not in rcniem- 
brance of Christ, there would be a departure from his 
command. 

So in regard to baptism. The Lord has commanded 
to baptize ; but he has given no command about the 
circumstances of time, and place, and dress, and pos- 
ture, and accompanying prayers and praises. These arc 

* Pp. 365, 366. 



.VI) li K IIKNC K TO THK P II I M 1 T I V K UITK. 110 

circiniKStaiices uhich affect not the command itself. The 
two case?, then, as j>resented by Prof. Stuart, are by no 
means parallel : one regards the thing itself; the other, 
solely the circumstances of the thinf^. 

A parallel case would he, a departure from the thin*; 
comnirindcd in each ordinance. AViiat is the thinj^ com- 
manded in each ? We are recpiired to be baptized ; and 
we are required to partake of bread and of wine. Now 
if a person declines to be baptized, and contents him- 
self with some uiicommanded ceremony that had been 
performed upon him in infancy or at any age, and that 
does not answer to the design of baptism, can he com- 
pare his failure to the conduct of a person who doe?* 
partake of bread and wine out of regard to the Lord'j* 
authority ? What though he does partake of these em- 
blems in circumstances widely different from those, in 
which the ordinance was at first establisiied and com- 
manded ? The Lord gave not even a shadow of a com- 
mand respecting these circumstances; and these cir- 
cumstances comnmnicate no part of the moral instruc- 
tion to be conveyed. 

It is not right, then, to represent a Baptist as saying 
in regard to the Lord's Supper, " I obey the substantial 
part of the command, viz. to partake of bread and wine 
in grateful remembrance of Christ ; and this is all which 
the nature of the case seems to require." * This is not 
only the substantial part of the command ; it is so far 
as the language can be understood, the command itself, 
the whole of the command. And to represent these ac- 
companying circumstances as at all entering into tire 
Saviour's original command, and to represent as parallel 
the ACTION, whatever it be, expressed by the word bap- 

* P. 3()G. 



J 90 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

tize, and the circumstances in which another action 
was commanded, really pours no light on the matter 
under discussion. 

These circumstances in regard to the Lord's Supper, 
are properly parallel to circumstances in regard to baptism ; 
namely, its being administered in the day, or in the 
night ; in the Jordan, or in any other river ; in a pond 
or a baptistery; and a baptistery either under cover, or 
in tlie open air ; its being administered to persons kneel- 
ing, or standing ; the candidate's being placed under 
the water with his head bowing forwards, or in an op- 
posite direction. 

These circumstances afl'ect not the rite itself; nor do 
the mere circumstances which accompany the Lord's 
Supper affect that rite. Let it he proved that immersion 
is only a circumstance of baptism, and the reasoning 
which I have now exposed would hold good ; but let it 
not be taken for granted, that immersion is a mere cir- 
cumstance of the command to baptize. 

A cliange of the elements appointed for the Lord's 
Supper is mentioned above, as a departure from the 
Saviour's command. The intimation, made by Prof. 
Stuart, that a truly spiritual mind would judge different- 
ly,* and would not be strenuous in regard to external 
observances, needs to be carefully considered before it 
is acted on. If this be so, what may not a spiritual 
mind do in regard to religious observances? and what 
may it not neglect ? and what alterations may it not in- 
troduce 1 The religion which our omniscient Creator 
has established, is adapted for just such beings as men 
nre ; beings, capable of deriving great ])rolit from a few 
simple symbols, and needing such symbols as, in their 



P. 307 



I 



ADHERENCE TO THE PRIMITIVE RITE. ]J1 

very natiiie, are suited to convey the instruction wliicli 
the Saviour intended. lie knew wliat particular 
rites arc most appropriate ; and the ministers of reli- 
gion best show their regard for the authority of the Head 
of the church, and for the moral welfare of men, if not 
their spirituality, by a careful compliance with what di- 
vine authority has established. If providential circum- 
stances render it impracticable for a person to attend 
upon certain religious observances, his obligation to at- 
tend upon them ceases for the time being ; nor is he called 
upon, under the show of obedience, to substitute some- 
thing else in their place. The Lord chooses mercy, and 
not sacrifice. And, in my apprehension, he shows a 
more truly spiritual mind, who feels himself exempted 
from obligation, because divine providence has put insu- 
perable obstacles in his way ; than he who feels that, 
though he cannot strictly obey the command, he yet 
must do something, and therefore substitutes an unre- 
quired service, a mere ' bodily exercise' which certainly 
• profiteth but little.' In the latter case, there seems to 
bo at least a remnant of servile, self-righteous attach- 
ment to outward performances. But if something be 
thus substituted, let it be called by its right name, a sub- 
stitute for what has been appointed ; and let not a per- 
son, because he may possess a spiritual mind, feel him- 
self at liberty to establish what the Lord has not requir- 
ed, or to alter, at his own will, what the Lord has re- 
quired. The history of religious ordinances, and of re- 
ligion, as affected by those ordinances, is of so sombre 
a character that we ought carefully to guard against 
departures from divine appointment, even though a spir- 
itual mind might suggest the departures. 

In regard to the particular case supposed by Prof. 
Stuart, and mentioned by him as one about the propriety 
11 



122 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

of which no doubt ought to be feh, namely, the Iceland- 
ers', during a year of great distress, employing fish and 
water,* instead of bread and wine, in a professed cele- 
bration of the Lord's Supper, I doubt not that I express 
the spontaneous feeling of many truly spiritual Chris- 
tians, by saying, the mind instinctively, as it were, turns 
away from such a representation. There ought to be 
no surprise, if such a celebration should be regarded in 
almost any other light, than in that of a profitable re- 
ligious ordinance. At best it could be called only a 
substitute. Besides, what may be expedient in a case of 
uncommon exigency, furnishes no rule for guidance in 
ordinary circumstances. The Lord, too, may accept 
the sincere desires and the pious emotions which may 
accompany erroneous practices, while yet he may re- 
gard the practices, as they really are, erroneous, and in 
many instances leading, sooner or later, to dangerous 
results. 

But why so strict ? Because the ordinances of the 
gospel are full of meaning ; and acts, diftering from 
those primitive ordinances, do not convey all the in- 
tended meaning. In respect to baptism, moral pu- 
rification is indeed a part of the meaning which it 
was intended to express; the proof of this is, in my 
judgment, and as is well shown by Prof. Stuart, abun- 
dant in the word of God. 1 see not how any, as Prof. 
Stuart intimates that some do,t can believe baptism to 
be " merely a type or emblem of the death of Christ ;" 
or the " two rites under the new dispensation " to be 
" both significant of only one and the same thing." In- 
deed, I never knew any who thus taug])t respecting the 
ordinance of baptism. 

* P. 3G7. t P. 370. 



ADHERENCE TO THE PRIMITIVE RITE. 123 

It is most readily granted, that if purification be the 
only thing represented by baptism, then there is by no 
means so much need of opposing a departure from im- 
mersion. But something else is also intended to be 
represented, which renders immersion necessary ; and 
as the purification represented in baptism, is purification 
obtained through the death and resurrection of Christ, 
it is surely not surprising that the apostle should teach, 
that in baptism there is a recognition of this deatb and 
resurrection, and of our obligation to die unto sin, as 
Christ died for sin ; and to rise to a new and holy life, 
as Christ arose to a new and glorious life. 

Conceding, then, that sprinkling, or pouring, or wash- 
ing may have a significancy, it does not follow that it 
has all the significancy, which the baptismal rite was in- 
tended to possess. Let the rite be so performed, as to 
convey all the moral instruction which it was intended 
to convey. The rite has no " mystical power of itself 
to sanctify ; — it is a symbolical rite, significant of truth, 
i. e. of doctrine, or fact."* None of its significancy 
ought to be lost ; but in all its fullness, and all its appro- 
priateness, it ought to be observed, and made a source of 
salutary and heart-affecting instruction to its recipients. 

Immersion may indeed be practised without its real 
meaning's being always perceived and felt ; and without 
the life and power of religion, either in its administrators 
or in its subjects. But what then ? Does this argue, 
that a regard to immersion is either injurious, or even 
useless, to piety? Of what religious observance, and of 
the belief of what religious doctrine, may not as much 
be said 1 Does the case of the Oriental church, men- 
tioned by Prof Stuart as "the most vicious and ignorant 

* P. 376. 



124 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

of all who bear the name of Christians" — " twice dead 
and" deserving " to be plucked up by the roots," * doef? 
the case of this church, which is zealously attached 
to immersion, prove the uselessness of adhering to the 
primitive rite? The causes of moral death in the 
Oriental church, that is among the modern Greeks, can 
be found elsewhere tlian in this matter. And who can 
doubt that that portion of Christendom would now have 
been in a far different state, if the ordinances, as Christ 
appointed them, had been strictly observed, and if no 
human additions and modifications had been appen- 
ded to the simplicity that is in Christ ? 

On the ground exhibited above, I acknowledge 1 do 
not feel at liberty to substitute any human device for 
what the Head of the church has established. But 
while, on this ground, I feel myself thus restricted, I do 
not regard it as a just consequence, that I am " not at 
liberty, without being justly exposed to the accusation 
of gross departure from Christianity, to depart from the 
modes and/brws of the apostolic church in any respect." 
Nor do I see the propriety of the following questions 
proposed by Prof. Stuart ; " I ask those who plead for 
literal conformity in mode to the ancient rite of baptism, 
how they dispose of the ordinance respecting the disci- 
ples' washing each other's feet, described at large in 
John, c. XII. and particularly enjoined in vs. 14, 15? 
Who has repealed the obligation to a literal conformity 
with this command ? You will say, It is the spirit, 
rather than the letter, which is here inculcated. I ac- 
cede. But what is the case in respect to baptism ? Will 
nothing but the letter do here 1 So you may think and 
reason ; but are you not entirely inconsistent with 
yourself?"* 



ADHERENCE TO THE PRIMITIVE RITE. 125 

No; I reply. If our Lord did indeed enjoin this as 
an ordinance of his religion, to be perpetually observed, 
we ought not to neglect it. But did he enjoin this act as 
a standing observance of religion ; an ordinance, as 
really as that of baptism and that of the Lord's Supper? 
Or was this act of tiie Saviour solely and altogether in- 
tended to show the disciples the spirit which they should 
cherish, and to enjoin upon them a certain class of so" 
cial and relative duties, without enjoining any one ex- 
ternal act at all ? Does not the subsequent history of 
the apostles show this ? We violate no ordinance of our 
Lord, by not washing one another's feet ; we disobey 
no precept of his, by not washing one another's feet, 
provided we cherish the humility and the benevolence 
which he thus impressively inculcated. Not so in the 
injunction respecting baptism. There was an external act 
enjoined, a certain religious observance. And though 
a person should mortify his sinful propensities and pre- 
serve in his breast a remembrance of his cruci6ed and 
risen Lord, but yet comply not with the enjoined ob- 
servance of baptism and of the Lord's Supper, he would 
be living in disobedience to his Master. The two cases. 
then, are not parallel. 

Just so with the instructions by Paul to the Corin- 
thians respecting dress and hair,t produced by Prof 
Stuart as illustrating our liberty to depart from the 
apostolic practice of immersion ; and just so, it may be 
added, with the instructions to them respecting living in 
an unmarried state. If it can be shown, that these in- 
structions were not, most manifestly, intended as local 
and temporary, but were evidently intended to point out 
duties universally binding, we should be under obli- 

-P. :372. f r. 072 

11^ 



126 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

gations to comply with them. If the apostle's instruc- 
tions were urged upon these followers of the Saviour, as 
being the Saviow^s followers, and consequently applica- 
ble at all times, and in all places, then all the followers 
of Christ, as such, ought to obey them. But if they 
were addressed to Corinthian followers of Christ, as 
being inhabitants of CorirUh, at such a time, and in such 
and such circumstances, then they plainly, as precepts, 
make no claim upon our observance. But can baptism 
be spoken of in this manner — baptism, a public religious 
ordinance of universal and perpetual obligation? Can 
any one feel the same liberty in regard to baptism, that 
he may justly feel in regard to the apostle's instructions 
to the Corinthians on topics of local and temporary in- 
terest ? The cases are not parallel. 

It is asked, " Why should baptism be made symboli- 
cal of the death of Christ 1 All Jewish analogy is against 
it :"* inasmuch as all the ablutions of the ritual law 
were designed to signify purif cation. Tliis remark 
might be of force against one who should deny that 
purification is signified by baptism. But while pu- 
rification, confessedly, is signified, Jewish analogy is 
of no weight at all against the additional Christian 
significancy which is derived from the manner of em- 
ploying the purifying element ; namely, a burial in it. 
and an arising out of it, signifying our conformity to 
Christ in death to sin and rising to a new life. Jewish 
analogy touches not at all this additional significancy, 
nor are we at liberty to reject this additional significancy 
as being in our opinion needless, unless we can satisfac- 
torily show, that the apostle did not thus represent bap- 
tism. It is on his teaching, that the manner of the bap- 
tismal rite is regarded as significant. 



I 



ADHERENCE TO THE PRIMITIVE R I T f: . 1 '27 

Tliat some churches began, at an early period, to de- 
part from apostolic usage, is indeed matter of history. 
The language of Cyprian (A. D. 240) quoted by Prof. 
Stuart is sufficient evidence of this; as arc the proofs 
produced by him from subsequent ages.* This depart- 
ure, however, may be traced to principles quite different 
from those which are now pleaded as justifying it. At a 
very early period, superstitious notions were cherished 
respecting the efficacy of baptism ; and as it was con- 
ceived to hold an indispensable connection with salva- 
tion, it was of course deemed desirable that its benefit? 
should be extensively enjoyed, and that none should pass 
into eternity without its salutary influence. Hence, for 
persons on sick beds, who had not been baptized, the 
semblance of baptism at least was sought, through the 
belief that, though there was some deficiency in the per- 
formance, yet, in the circumstances of the persons, the 
saving benefit of the ordinance would not be withheld. 
It was not then, in general, sjjtrifuaUf)/, it was not correct 
views of the gospel, that led to the change in the per- 
formance. It was superstition in regard to the ordi- 
nance. And as we know how grossly incorrect were 
the views of the churches respecting the value of exter- 
nal rites, it is not at all surprising, that during the dark 
ages and at an earlier period, there are many proofs of 
departure from the primitive practice. These instances 
of departure, however, are exceptions to the general 
practice ; exceptions, which owe their origin to super- 
stitious notions concerning the efficacy of baptism, and 
to a regard for convenience, and which therefore arc 
but poorly adapted to be ])recedents for our guidance 



P. 373—375. 



128 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

3. As to the third allegation, that " personal safety 
and convenience often demand that immersion should 
be dispensed with ;" it probably needs only a slight 
notice. 

The difficulties supposed to be connected with the 
ancient rite are only imaginary ; and are of little power 
except in the hands of an adversary, to excite dread 
and disesteem against the ordinance. Among those 
who always practise immersion, the mention of such 
difficulties only provokes a smile ; and it serves to show 
how empty is mere theory, when contrasted with facts. 

Shall I be told that men have actually, by their prac- 
tice of immersion, contracted disorders and met with 
accidents which have terminated in death ? May 
I not also ask, did never a minister die in the pulpit ? 
Did never a man come to his dissolution, when on an 
errand of mercy ? We have no right to expect that 
God will work miracles to prevent the natural effects of 
presumption or of imprudence, even though committed 
in respect to the cause of Christ. 

But why enlarge on so plain a case ? Whatever bap- 
tism be (and I extend the remark to all outward reli- 
gious observances), when divine providence renders tiic 
administration of the ordinance impracticable, a truly 
spiritual mind will experience no distressing apprehen- 
sions of the displeasure of God for not observing the 
ordinance. " God is a spirit," and requires the heart; 
and when access to water is " dangerous or impos- 
sible," such a mind will conclude, that i)ersons need 
not, for the present, be baptized. For, as Prof. Stuart 
says, "no external ordinance is obligatory when it be- 
comes dangerous to health or life.''* IJaptism has no 

• r. 380. 



D I F F I C U L T 1 F: S OF IMMERSION. 129 

inherent " power of itself to sanctify." " It was not in- 
stituted to injure, destroy, or even hazard life."* But 
while a person, possessing a truly spiritual mind, will 
thus conclude, he will not feel it necessary to substitute 
something in the place of what has been commanded, as 
though some external observances must, at all events, be 
performed. True spirituality will rest in the conclusion, 
that if there he a milling mind, it is accepted according to 
what a man hath; and that he does well, that it is in his 
heart to render obedience. Yet let circumstances 
change, let obstacles be removed, and let there be an 
opportunity for complying with an enjoined external 
duty, and even his spirituality would prompt him to 
embrace the opportunity ; and should he not embrace 
the opportunity, his spirituality could not long be en- 
joyed, and conscience would loudly accuse him of dis- 
obedience. 

The intimation that the use of baptisteries, as a method 
of surmounting, or avoiding, great inconveniences, is 
inconsistent with literal obedience to the command re- 
specting baptism, is quite unfounded. Jesus has en- 
joined baptism upon believers ; but he has given no 
injunction about the place, and other circumstances. 
The religious immersion of a believer in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is 
baptism, whether administered in a river, or a lake, 
formed by the Creator; or in a canal, or a body of 
water, which owes its present form and location to hu- 
man contrivance. And what matters it, as to the fact 
of baptism, and as to the moral instruction conveyed by 
it, whether this body of water be in the open air, or be 
under a roof ? There is no departure from the original 

* F. 3c0. 



130 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

command ; there is no want of literal conformity to the 
original command ; for the original command touches 
none of these circumstances. 

Nor, on this same ground, is it warrantable to throw 
out the intimation, that consistency would require of 
the advocates of immersion, that persons about to be 
baptized should be ^^ naked as Adam and Eve before their 
falV* (I use here the very words of Prof. Stuart ; and 
I scarcely know how to express my sorrow, that he 
should urge a thought which is so needless, and so un- 
called for, and which is certainly more fitted, though, I 
fully believe, not intended, for exciting disesteem against 
his fellow Christians, than for sober argumentation.) 
Does this circumstance enter at all into the command ? 
Is this circumstance at all required by any scriptural 
statements concerning the significancy of baptism ? By 
no means. Prof. Stuart, though he urges this topic, 
merely says, " if you take your stand on the ancient prac- 
tice of the churches in the days of the early Christian 
fathers .... I have the like charge [i. e. charge of " a griev- 
ous departure from the command of Christ"] " to make 
against you."t But who ever charged any Christians 
with " departure from the command of Christ," on the 
ground that they were not conforming to " the ancient 
practice of the churches in the days of the early Chris- 
tian fathers ?" Besides, who are they that take their 
" stand on the ancient practice of the churches in the 
days of the early Christian fathers ?" Surely not those 
who refuse to sprinkling the name of baptism. They 
ask not, as a princij)al question. What did the early 
fathers teach ? What did the early fathers practise ? 
but. What saith the Scripture ? 



* P. 361. 1 P. 381. 



DIFFICULTIES OF IMMERSION. 131 

Nor is there just ground for tlie remark by Prof. 
Stuart that " there is the same kind of evidence," that 
the primitive mode of baptism requires persons to be di- 
vested of all their garments, as proves to us "that im- 
mersion was the only apostolic mode of baptism : viz. 
the universal usage of the ancient churches."* Suppose 
for a moment, that all the records of the ancient church- 
es had been lost, and that in order to ascertain what 
baptism is, we were restricted to the New Testament, 
and to the still earlier sources of evidence respecting the 
meaning of words "^ Or suppose, (what is perpetually 
happening among newlj converted disciples of Jesus, in 
their conscientious desires to know what the Lord has 
enjoined upon his followers,) suppose we should confine 
ourselves, in the investigation of our duty respecting 
baptism, to the word of God. Need we, in such circum- 
stances be in doubt as to what we ought to do ? In the 
word of God, we have sufficient evidence, that immer- 
sion was the apostolic baptism ; while there is no satis- 
factory evidence, that any thing else was practised as 
baptism, and no satisfactory evidence that the word 
3u7iTi;o) [baptize] ever loses sight of its meaning, to im- 
merse. Can such a remark be made respecting being 
divested of garments at baptism ? Can being divested oj 
garments be sustained by " the same kind of evidence," 
as the duty of immersion can ? If indeed it were " the 
universal usage of the ancient churches," by which the 
duty of immersion is proved, and if 07i that ground any 
persons practised it, they might perhaps be incumbered 
in their reasoning by the unworthy practice above refer- 
red to, and by many other practices attached by human 
device to the simple injunctions of Christ. But it can- 



V. 382 



132 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

not be shown that such was "the universal usage of the" 
most " ancient churches ;" it was rather an innovation 
upon the most ancient practice. No intimation exists 
in the New Testament of such a practice, nor in the 
earliest Christian fathers. 

It is not, howev^er, the advocates of immersion^ on 
vv^hom such consequences, drawn from acting on such a 
ground, ought to be fastened. It ought to be more gen- 
erally known, and it ought to be most seriously and sol- 
emnly considered, that it is the advocates of infant 
sprinkling, who have exposed themselves to the more 
just charge of being incumbered with such consequen- 
ces. That practice, which they defend as a Christian 
ordinance, is a ceremony which has not a proper war- 
rant in the Bible, which is not defensible by just Scrip- 
tural argument; and the proof for which must be made 
out " in another way'''' than by the directions, and exam- 
ples, and plain intimations of Scripture. And wheth- 
er such a method of determining Christian duty be not 
incumbered with the consequence, that " there is the 
same kind of evidence" for certain other unscriptural 
ceremonies as there is for the sprinkling of infants, let 
consistency testify, let the defences of Roman Catholic 
errors testify. 

It is true, that in discussions respecting baptism, use 
is made of the fact, that tlie most ancient churches after 
the times of tlie apostles practised immersion ; but it is 
rather in the light of confirmation, than of direct proof, 
of our present duty. The practice of those ancient 
Christians in this respect, coincided with what, from 
other sources, we learn to be tlie meaning of the word 
which expresses the ordinance, and the practice of the 
apostles ; nor can their practice be well accounted for 
in any other way, than by their perceiving the real 



VARIATION FROM CLASSIC USE. 133 

meaning of the word ;^<t:Til';«t [b(q)tizc]^ and by tlic fact 
that the practice of immersion descended to them from 
the times of the New Testament. 

But is not tliis representation stripped, in part at 
least, of its force, by the objection, that although " the 
classical use of the word abundantly justifies the con- 
struction I put upon it ;" yet " classical usage can never 
be very certain in respect to the meaning of a word in 
the New Testament ?" Such is the objection made by 
Prof. Stuart.^ But certainly this broad statement needs 
qualifying. If a word used by the classics be of such a 
kind as not to he affected by Jewish idiom, its classical 
meaning may hold good even in the New Testament. 
Again, if a word used by the classics be of such a kind, as 
not to be affected by the different and superior religious 
information and opinions of the Jews, its classical mean- 
ing may remain in the New Testament. Now the 
words God, heaven, jlesh, faith, righteousness, mentioned 
by Prof. Stuart, and many other words, must necessari- 
ly have different meanings, or different shades of mean- 
ing, in the New Testament from those which they have 
in the heathen classics, on account of the different state 
of religious knowledge among the Jews, and on account 
of the influence which the ancient language of the na- 
tion had upon their modes of expression. But not all 
the words which occur in the New Testament undergo 
a change of meaning. The words to loalk, stand, re- 
cline, eat, drink, sleep, and many others, may be illus- 
trated from classical use. Their meaning is the same 
in all writers ; and in regard to a multitude of words, 
there were no peculiar modes of expression, or of think- 
ing, which would subject a person to mistake who should 

* P. 382. 
12 



134 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

pass from the re.ading of the classics to the reading of 
the New Testament. Is there then any thing in the na- 
ture of the word immerse or dip^ which would require its 
classical meaning to be altered when the word occurs in 
the New Testament 1 Was there any thing in the relig- 
ion « knowledge of the Jews, that would require a depart- 
ure from the classical meaning? Is there any thing in 
the meaning, or in the use of the Hebrew word to which 
SuTtTi^io [haptize'\ corresponds, that requires its classical 
meaning to be deserted? The Hebrew word to which 
^anrCCLo [baptize] corresponds, clearly means to dip, to im- 
merse. If an immersion in any case, or on any occasion, 
was enjoined, tlic Jcivs would not be likely to evade the 
performance of this rite through any views of the spiritu- 
ality of God. Why then j)lace this word among those, 
whose classical meaning will not hold in the New Testa- 
ment, but which have undergone a change in meaning 
through the influence of the Hebrew language, or the in- 
fluence of difterent religious institutions ? If we pass from 
the classical use of the word to that of the Septuagint, we 
find no necessity for departing from classical use. If, 
again, we examine the word in the Apocryphal writings, 
no sufficient reason can be exhibited for departing from 
the classical use. Nor is tiiere a satisfactory reason for 
abandoning this use of tlie word, when it occurs in the 
New Testament in reference to other subjects than the 
baptismal rite. Ought then the evidence for the mean- 
ing of tliis word, derived from classic use, to be dis- 
posed of in the very summary way of saying, there is a 
multitude of words whose New Testament nieaning does 
not confurm to their chissic meaning? 

I have now finished my examination, so far as the 
principal arginnents and statements are concerned. On 



PHARISAIC RIGIiTEOUSNKSS. 135 

the various concesj^ions made by Prof. Stuart, I leave 
my readers to their own rellections. There are some 
miscellaneous topics, on which a few remarks will not, I 
trust, be deemed inappropriate. 



SECTION FIFTH. 

3Ii s ccllaneous Topics. 

Pharisaic Righteousness, 

By some parts of the article which I have been ex- 
amining, an impression is made, whether intended or not, 
that strenuousness about retaining the original rite of 
baptism involves some belief of a mystical efficacy in the 
rite, or a leaven of Pharisaic righteousness. So far, 
however, as I have had opportunity to observe, ministers 
and Christians of the Baptist denomination are re- 
markably free from any such notion, especially so far as 
this ordinance is concerned ; and to speak to them of 
the efficacy of baptism, is to use language to which they 
are unaccustomed, and to which they cannot attach de- 
finite ideas. This too is very easily explained. They 
regard baptism as intended only for those who are 
already in a state of favor with God, that is, for the 
truly regenerate; and as nothing, in their view, is 
baptism, but the immersion of professed believers, 
zeal in regard to this practice amounts to the same, 
in them, as zeal would, in others, for any divinely 
appointed ordinance. And as to Pharisaic righteous- 
ness, there is no more ground for such a charge 
against them, than there would be for a similar charge 
against the most humble and spiritually minded Pro- 
testant, who should vindicate, in the administration 



13G CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

of the Lord's Supper, the use of both bread and wine, in 
opposition to the Papist, who contends, that the wine 
must be withheld from the laity. May I be excused for 
hinting, not I trust, in the spirit of recrimination, that on 
this point, too, the practice of infant sprinkling has had 
a very intimate connection with unscriptural dependence 
on external ceremonies for securini»: the favor of God. 
How much do many persons dread that their infants 
should die without this ceremojiy ! And how often have 
learned and venerable ministers been summoned, and 
how often have they hastened, to the chamber of afflic- 
tion, lest, as it would seem, some little sufferer should 
breathe its last before the seal of the covenant had been 
placed upon it ! * I would not represent this as a 
necessary consequence of the sprinkling of infants. 
Far from il. I only speak of this feeling as what 
has extensively prevailed in connection with this prac- 
tice, and what has not yet entirely ceased ; still, I trust, 
the feeling is now les§ extensively and less strongly 
cherished^ 

Language not sulficiently guarded. 

In a few instances, the language of Prof. Stuart in 
his essay is not quite so guarded as propriety would re- 
quire. In speaking of the mode of the baptismal rite as 
not being essential, the distinction is not uniformly ob- 
served between its being essential^ or not, to the rite, and 

* A venerable minister, now occupying an eminent station, has 
been understood to say, that of the salvation of deceased infants 
who had been baptized, he had no doubt, but in regard to others, 
Uiough he had hope, yet he could not express so much confidence. 



LANGUAGE NOT GUARDED. 137 

its being essential, or not, to C/n^istiajiify. And indeed, 
in a passajre or two, the language can hardly fail to con- 
vey the idea, that the principle of literal conformity to 
the original rite involves the sentiment, that immersion 
is essential to the Christian religion, and thus that the 
proper performance of this rite enters into the essentials 
of picti/.* A very wrong idea, certainly; and one, 
which Prof. Stuart would be the last man in the world 
intentionally to charge upon those whose opinions he 
has been opposing. Immersion may be essential to the 
ordinance, so that if a person have not been immersed 
on a profession of his faith, he may not have complied 
with the Saviour's injunction; and yet immersion may 
not be essential to his piety, just as on various accounts, 
and in various circumstances, no external observance 
whatever may be essential to piety. As this, however, 
namely, their not being essential to piety, or salvation, 
is no argument against external observances in general^ 
so neither is it an argument against the duty and the 
propriety of immersion in particular. 

The word ordinance, too, employed in reference to the 
washing of feett (John c. 13), is justly liable to excep- 
tion. However wide may be the possible application of 
this word, as suggested solely by its etymology, and how- 
ever variously it may actually be used on common 
topics, yet its religious use is very considerably restrict- 
ed ; and it invariably suggests to the mind, an external 
observance of universal and perpetual obligation upon 
the followers of Christ. Prof. Stuart does not, probably, 
use the word, when referring to the above named chap- 
ter, in this sense. If he does not, his language certainly 
implies a more grievous charge than he intended. 

* Pp. 364, 365. t P. 372. 

12* 



138 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 



Tendency of some Leading Principles in Prof. Stuart's Essay. 

I venture a remark respecting the tendency of some 
of the principles developed in the essay which I have 
been examining. They are not sufficiently safe. Why 
may not ministers, who favorably regard the views 
which it exhibits, be willing to dispense entirely with 
every thing that has been called baptism, and admit 
into their churches persons who in their own judg- 
ment and by universal opinion, are not baptized, pro- 
vided those persons proless to think it needless to be 
baptized ? And, thus what security is there for an uncom- 
promising maintenance of his command, by whose au- 
thority ministers profess to act? Again; to illustrate 
the tendency of these principles in an opposite direction, 
why may not ministers and Christians, out of accom- 
modation to existing circumstances, regard as matters 
of utter indifterence, various appendages which have 
been attached to the gospel ? Such appendages may not 
indeed be defended, or approved ; but, at the same time, 
their removal may not be thought of sufficient import- 
ance to cost an effort. For God is a spirit ; he requires 
the heart ; these external things are mere costume. 

Influence on the Philological Study of the Bible. 

I feel constrained also, in sorrow of spirit, to say that 
the general impression, made by this article in refer- 
ence to the philological study of the Bible, is unfavora- 
ble. In more minds than one has such a thought arisen. 
Some persons, of no little discrimination too, liave 
thought that an important scriptural subject has been 



P H 1 LO LOG IC'aL STUDY OF THE BIBLE. 139 

treated l)y a warm advocate for such study, in a manner 
not coMformable to just rules of interpretation. They 
have thought, that an intelhgent infidel could not but be 
confirmed by this article, viewed as a whole, in his hos- 
tility against the Bible, as a book explained by its friends, 
not on just and rational principles, but according to 
their own purposes. 

A use, not justified by sacred philology and correct 
rules of interpretation, has been made of a passage, 
which I know is a favorite one with many, particularly 
the uninformed, in their defence of sprinkling ; viz. Ezek. 
36 : 25, Then loill I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye 
shall he clean ; from all your Jilthincss, and from all your 
idols, will I cleanse you. Concerning this text, the re- 
mark is made, that " the prophet Ezekiel speaks of water 
to be sprinkled, under the new dispensation."* Was 
the prophet, I ask, speaking of any particular outward 
observance to be performed, or did he simply convey the 
idea that God would purify his people from their iniqui- 
ty ? And did he not represent this moral purifying by the 
emblem of sprinkling, to which their ritual had accus- 
tomed them as significant of purification ? To me this 
is so evident from reading the whole connectioji, that I 
need no argument to sustain it ; and it has always seem- 
ed suflaciently strasge to me, that any should resort to 
this prophecy, to ascertain how a Christian ordinance 
should be performed. They surely must be attracted 
solely by the loord which occurs in the verse employed, 
without regarding the idea. Besides, this verse, in like 
manner as the connected ones, informed the Jews what 
God would do, not what the ministers of religion would 
be required to do. 

* P. 371. 



140 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

This same passage is referred to, in connection with 
Isa. 12 : 3. 44 : 3. Zech. 13:1, as unfolding the sources 
whence the Jews might have derived " the opinion, that 
the Messiah would haptize his disciples."^ But how 
human ingenuity could derive from these passages such an 
opinion, it is difficult to conceive. If the Jews, at any 
period of their history, could justly make such a discov- 
ery from these passages, they must either have had a 
very different sort of light from that which is now en- 
joyed, or else the study of sacred interpretation is a 
hopeless undertaking, and the opposers of revelation 
may well call in question the propriety of the apostle 
Peter's remark, that prophecy is ' a light shinijig in a 
dark place.' 

I am unable to determine from the language of Prof. 
Stuart respecting these passages, whether he means tq 
express it as his own belief that the passages, properly 
interpreted, would lead the Jews to " the opinion that the 
Messiah would baptize his disciples ; " or whether he 
means only to say, that the Jews of our Saviour's time 
might, in some way or other, have drawn from them 
such an opinion. If the latter be his meaning, he does 
not, of course, make himself responsible for such an in- 
terpretation of the passages. This construction of his 
language is not, however, the obvious one. And yet, 
though he certainly seems to say so, can it be that Prof. 
Stuart himself really understands Isa. 12 : 3, Therefore 
with joy shall yc drmo icater out of the wells of salvatiofi, 
as adapted to raise an expectation among the Jews 
" that the Messiah would baptize his disciples ? " Or can 
it be that he considers Isa. 44 : 3, T'or I will pour water 
2ipon him that is thirsty, and foods upon the dry ground: 1 

• P. 354. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 141 

will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my bicssinff upon thine 
offspring, as a prophecy of Christian baptism ? or that he 
regards Zecli. 13 : 1, In that day there shall be a fountain 
opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Je- 
rusalem^ for sin and for unclcanness^ as a prophecy of 
Christian baptism 1 

Importance of this Examination. — Infant Baptism. 

I may appear to some to have shown a very needless 
solicitude about modes and forms. In my own judg- 
ment, however, it is not a solicitude about a mode or a 
form, but about an ordinance of the gospel. Now an 
ordinance of the gospel ought not to be displaced, and 
an unrequired ceremony substituted in its room ; espe- 
cially when, as in the present circumstances of the re- 
ligious world, this unrequired ceremony is connected 
with the additional and the greater error in respect to 
the recipients of a Christian ordinance. It is not, how- 
ever, my design to enlarge respecting the proper subjects 
of baptism ; this, I trust, will, in due time, be executed 
by abler hands. I will just say, that the topics suggest- 
ed by Prof. Stuart as justifying infant baptism, are far 
from affording a satisfactory vindication. I here present 
them. " Commands, or plain and certain examples, in 
the New Testament relative to it, I do not find. Nor, 
with my views of it, do I need them. If the subject had 
respect to what \s fundamental or essential m Christiani- 
ty, then I must find either the one or the other, in order 
to justify adopting or practising it. But as the case 
now is, and the rite itself is but an external rite ; the 
general analogy of the ancient dispensation ; the en- 
largement of privilege under the Gospel ; the silence of 
the New Testament on the subject of receiving children 



142 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

into a special relation to the church by the baptismal rite, 
which shows, at least, that there was no dispute in early 
ages relative to this matter ; the certainty that in Ter- 
tullian's day the practice was general ; all these consid- 
erations put together'— united with the conviction that 
baptism is symbol and dedication^ and may be so in the 
case of infants as well as adults ; and that it brings pa- 
rents and children into a peculiar relation to the church, 
and under peculiarly recognized obligation — serve to 
satisfy me fully, that the practice may be, and should 
be, continued."* 

Why ought we not to be guided by the New Testa- 
ment, and to be satisfied with its guidance, on the ques- 
tion, to whom is Christian baptism to be administered 1 
as well as on the question, to whom is the Lord's Sup- 
per to be administered ? And why might not infant 
communion, if it had obtained as firm footing and had 
been continued as generally in the church as infant bap- 
tism, be defended by some of these same considera- 
tions 1 In truth, the one practice as a religious ordi- 
nance, is quite as improper as the other ; the one is 
quite as incongruous with the nature and design of Chris- 
tian ordinances as the other. Is there such a peculiari- 
ty about baptism, as places it quite out of the range of 
other scriptural subjects ? Is not the question, whether 
infants are proper subjects of baptism, to be decided by 
a direct appeal to those parts of the Bible which give in- 
formation in regard to baptism ? While on other ques- 
tions relating to religious faith and religious duty, plain 
and clear expressions of the divine will are required, on 
this, it would seem, they are not needed. On all other 
gubjects, pertaining to religious doctrine and duty, a 

* P. 385. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 143 

Christian man would ascertain the rij^ht path by a sim- 
ple reference to the word of God ; why is not the ques- 
tion of duty in respect to baptism to be decided in the 
same manner ? Why is not the Bible a sufficient, and 
a sufficiently lucid, directory on this? Ought any man's 
" vicws^^ of the ordinance to regulate his conclusion 
without recurring to " commands, or plain and certain 
examples ;" or ought the word of God to regulate both 
his views and his conclusion 1 Is a man who has hith- 
erto been ignorant of Christianity, and who has no 
views respecting it, but who has now received the whole 
Bible and is left to its guidance alone, is he not in a ca- 
pacity fully to decide the question of duty as to the 
scriptural subjects of baptism ? Does the great Protes- 
tant principle of the sufficiency and the supremacy of 
the Bible, fail in respect to baptism, and in respect to 
baptism only ? And where, in the whole Bible, is the 
passage, or the combination of passages, that would sug- 
gest to such a man, as I have above supposed, the duty 
of infant baptism ? What one passage in the whole 
word of God, demands for its fair and full explication, 
the practice of infant baptism ? Let the passage be pro- 
duced, and the church of Christ will be at rest on this 
point. Let the passage be produced, and divine author- 
ity be exhibited ; and then the advocates of infant bap- 
tism will no longer justly expose themselves to the res- 
ponsibility of keeping the family of Christ in agitation. 
But I must not enlarge. Let me state my honest con- 
viction and turn to another matter. On the ground, 
then, which Prof. Stuart has exhibited, as sustaining in- 
fant baptism, and with the scriptural representations of 
baptism full in my view, I could not, with a good con- 
science, as a Christian and a minister of the gospel, 
adopt the practice ; I see not how I could continue it, 



144 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

with a good conscience, had I been accustomed to it. I 
judge not any other man's conscience, on this subject or 
on any subject. But for myself, I ask a better warrant 
for doing any thing in the name of the Father and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 

Acts 19 : 1—6. 

A word or two respecting the fifth verse of this pas- 
sage may be expected. The following is the whole 
passage. *' And it came to pass, that while A polios 
was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper 
coasts, came to Ephesus ; and finding certain disciples, 
he said unto them. Have ye received the Holy Ghost 
since ye believed ? And they said unto him, We have 
not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 
And he said unto them. Unto what then were ye bap- 
tized ? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said 
Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repent- 
ance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on 
him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Je- 
sus. When they heard tiiis, they were baptized in the 
name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his 
hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them ; and 
they spake with tongues and prophesied." 

1 fully agree with Prof Stuart in tlie opinion express- 
ed by him,* that the fiftli verse, namely, when they heard 
this, they were baptized in the name of the LordJesuSy is the 
language of Luke, relating what was done to the twelve 
men after Paul's conversation with them. It never 
seemed to me right to represent this verse, as the lan- 
guage of Paul, informing these men what was usually 

» Pp. 3y(), 387. 



DIFFICULTIES O F I M M K 15. 3 I () N . 1 4r> 

done in the days of Joliii the Baptist. A reader, not 
thinkin<^ of tlie controversy respectinji^ tlie verse, could 
hardly fail to understand it, as the languajre of Lidte 
the historian, relating that, after Paul iiad conversed 
with these men, 'they were baptized in the name of the 
Lord Jesus ;' and that he then laid his hands on them, 
with which action was connected the iinj)arting of the 
Holy Ghost. 

Prof. Stuart's reason, however, for the rebaptizing in 
this case, is not required either by the passage itself, or 
by the general tenor of the New Testament ; namely, 
because they had been baptized only into an initiatory 
or preparatory dispensation.* As to 'the rebaptizing in 
this case, I feel no difficulty. It was doubtless a special 
case. Baptism was required for them by Paul, not be- 
cause they had been baptized only unto John's baptism ; 
but, so far as we can judge from the account, because 
Paul perceived there had been a radical defect in the 
instruction they had received previously to being baptiz- 
ed. They had not so much as heard whether there was 
any Holy Ghost; and from the sketch of Paul's conver- 
sation with them respecting John's baptism, it is alto- 
gether probable that they had not, in connection with 
being baptized, been directed to the great object of 
evangelic faith. It is not said, they had been baptized 
by John ; nor is it probable that they did receive baptism 
from him; for, from the scriptural account of John's 
proceedings, it is manifest, he was in the habit of com- 
municating instruction respecting the Holy Ghost, and 
of informing '* the people that they should believe on 
Him which should come after hiin."t Their baptism, 
then, was an altogether ignorant and irregular transac- 



* P. 388. t Acts 19: 4. 

13 



146 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

tion ; it was, in truth, a miliity. And on this ground, 
doubtless, the apostle required them, having since be- 
come Christians, and having now been properly instruct- 
ed, to be ' baptized in tiie name of the Lord Jesus.' 

A similar view of this passage I find expressed by 
Kiia|)p, in his lectures on Christian Theology. He says, 

"The practice of the first Christian Cliurch confirms 
the point, tiiat the baptism of John was considered es- 
sentially the same with Christian Baptism. For those 
who acknowledged that they had professed, by the bap- 
tism of John, to believe in Jesus as the Christ, and who 
in consequence of this had become in fact his disciples 
and had believed in him, were not, in a single instance, 
baptized again into Christ ; because this was considered 
as having been already done. Hence we do not find, 
that any apostle, or any other disciple of Jesus, was the 
second time baptized ; not even that Apollos mentioned 
in Acts IS: 25, because he had before believed in Jesus 
as Christ, although lie had received only the baptism of 
John. 

"But all those disciples of John, who Iiad not before 
acknowledged this truth, and had received the baptism 
of John or his successors in an entirely difierent signi- 
fication, were propcily considered at the time of the 
Apostles as not being baptized, or as wrongly baptized ; 
and all such were therefore required to be baj)tized ex- 
pressly into Christ as the Messiah This was the 

case with those |)ersons whom Paul (ActsJO: 1 — 5.) 
permitted to be b;ii)tized at Ephesus, although tliry had 
already received the baptism of John, There is in this 
place, nothing that needs to be artificially explained. 
The meaning is ; ' That when tliey heard from l*a»d that 
it was e.-sential to baptism, that one should helieve in 
Jesus as the Lord and Christ (which they hitherto had 



A N O N Y M O I" S L E T T E R . 117 

not done, since the disciples of John, who bnptized 
them, had said nothinj^ to them about it); they were 
then willing to suffer themselves to be solemnly obli- 
gated by baptism to the acknowledgment of Jesus.* 
This was the more necessary at that time, as many of 
the disciples of Joiin had entirely separated themselves 
from the Christians."* 

The Letter from "An Invisible Hand." — Restricted Communion. 

To a mere mention of my regret that the missionary 
brethren in Burinah should have thoufjlit it incnnibent 
on them, or even expedient, to inquire of Prof. Stuart, 
whether they should '■''transfer x\\e Greek word ^umiCo) 
into the Burman language, when it relates to the ordi- 
nance of baptism; or translate it by a word significant 
of immersion, or by a word of some other import, "f 
(which inquiry, he states, contributed its influence in 
calling forth his article,) I will add an expression of my 
regret, that any one slioujd have tliouglit it important or 
judicious to trouble him with such communications as 
the one written by "An Invisible Hand," and inserted, 
in a note, at the commencement of the article. Espe- 
cially do I regret, that tlie thought of more distinguished 
happiness in heaven to be enjoyed by those who are im- 
mersed, provided all other things are equal, was per- 
mitted to hold so prominent a place in the letter; for 
this is a subject of somewhat invidious bearing, and one, 
about which we may very easily incur the charge of at- 
tempting to be wise above what is written. This is a 
motive, too, which in the present world we are poorly 
able to appreciate. Without atten)ptiiig to balance be- 

* Vol. II. P. 515. t P. 288. 



148 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

tween higher degrees and lower degrees of glory, larger 
measures and smaller measures of happiness, it ought to 
be our simple and undeviating aim to cultivate piety of 
heart, devotion to our Redeemer, and in true simplicity 
and godly sincerity to inquire, 'Lord, what wilt thou have 
me to do V With this habitual cherishing of inward 
piety, and this unmixed prosecution of external duty as 
our Lord has enjoined it in his word, we ought to 
consecrate ourselves, and patiently to commit ourselves, 
to Him who judgeth righteously, without a question 
respecting our own reward, or that of our brethren. 
After all, we .^hall, every one of us, have too much rea- 
son to say, ' We are unprofitable servants.' The best 
of men, and the best of Christian communities, even in 
their best estate, fall too far short of their duty, to allow 
the language of gratulation. The Lord forgive his peo- 
ple for being so unworthy servants. The Lord pour 
forth his Spirit more abundantly uj)on the churches, 
which p:ofess so much regard for his commands and 
his example. 

But while I speak thus, I must also say that Prof. 
Stuart's reply to his anonymous correspondent, is not 
adecjua'e and satisfactory. For, even granting that ex- 
ternal rites "are valuable only for the in.^truction which 
they convey,"* it ch-arly follows that we ought not to 
dimini.<h, nor to alter, the significancy of them. And if 
the particular outward act, which was originally en- 
joined and ])ractised, be, according to scriptural repre- 
sentation, one of the sources of instruction, then we are 
not at liberty to dej>art from that partictilar outward 
act; and a solicitude about adhering to that act, does, 
on this grount!, no ujore involve a belief of mystical 

* r. :w6. 



ANONYMOUS LETTER. 149 

power in the outward observance, tlian does a solicitude 
for maintaining any external appointment which divine 
authority has established, and which was intended to 
convey some definite religious instruction, and to make 
a certain religious impression. A person therefore, 
while contending for immersion, as baptism, in distinc- 
tion from all other practices, may be just as free from 
any Pharisaic notion of merit, or of mystical power in 
this observance as is any other man wlio teaches that 
the ancient rite need not be retained, but who, at the 
same time, does not feel at liberty to teach that what he 
calls the rite of baptism may be dispensed with. There 
is just as much leaven of Pharisaic righteousness in the 
latter case as in tlie former. 

Nor would consistency require the anonymous writer 
to go to the Jordan to be baptized ;* for the place is a 
mere uncommanded circumstance. A particular act 
has been instituted; no particular body of water has 
been appointed, in which that act is to be performed. 

The instance selected from 2 Chron. 30 : 18 — 20 t, to 
show that we ought not to be strenuous about external 
rites, is not happily chosen. For the course pursued on 
the occasion there mentioned, was most remarkably 
fitted to show the people that the requisitions of the 
Levitical law were not to be lightly esteemed. It was 
thought necessary to offer special prayer, that the devi- 
ation from the prescribed method of observing the 
Passover should be pardoned. The people " who had 
not cleansed themselves, yet who did eat the passover 
otherwise than it was written;" and for whom " Heze- 
kiah prayed, saying, The good Lord pardon every one 
that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of 
his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the 

* P. 3d0. t P. 389. 

13* 



150 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

purification of the sanctuary," the people, I say, who 
were personally interested in this affair, and all the 
Jews, could not, after this transaction, but have a very 
deep impression concerning the sanctity of the law. 
And if from this occurrence we are to draw instruction 
respecting communion in the ordinance of the Lord's 
Supper, 1 fear the lesson which it would teach would be 
more unwelcome than is the present practice of Baptist 
churches. Could it be otherwise than most unpleasant 
to all concerned, if month after month, and week after 
week, it should be deemed incumbent, at the close of 
the communion service, to offer special prayer that the 
Lord would pardon certain partakers of the ordinance 
who had sought him in a manner contrary to his ar- 
rangements ? 

I could wish that the essay which I have been ex- 
amining had contained no reference to communion in 
the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. But at its close, 
mention is made of the " brethren who bar up their 
communion table against all who have not been im- 
mersed."* The following sentence deserves notice. 
"It is indeed a serious responsibility that we take 
upon ourselves, when we say, in the midst of all 
the light which the nineteenth century sheds around 
us, *I allow you to be a true disciple of Jesus; I 
hope and believe you have been born of the Spir- 
it ; but I cannot sit down with you at the feast of 
Jesus' dying love, because water has not been applied 
to you in the same manner as it lias to me.' "t This is 
not a correct, nor a kind, statement of the case. I am 
constrained to say, (in sorrow that there is such an oc- 
casion to say it, and with a belief that the error of the 
representation was not perceived,) I am constrained to 



P. 389. t P. 390. 



COMMUNION. 151 

aay that brotherly kindness and justice require a differ- 
ent statement. If immersion be only one mode of bap- 
tism, and if pouring, and sprinkling, and any application 
of water, be other modes of baptism ; if, in short, whatever 
be the mode in \ifchich water is used, still Christian bap- 
tism is performed, then the statement would approach 
to correctness. And if, in addition, it could be shown, 
that babes and acknowledged unbelievers, if immersed in 
water, or if water be poured upon them, or if water be 
sprinkled upon them, have received Christian baptism, 
then might the statement be correct. With Prof Stu- 
art's views of baptism, his remark is rightly framed ; 
but he certainly should consider, that his views of bap- 
tism are totally different from the views of those in 
reference to whom he framed the remark, and whom he 
represents as making the remark. Let his views of 
baptism be first clearly proved to be scriptural, as well 
as the views of those who practise restricted commu- 
nion, and then if they continue the practice of restricted 
communion, they will deserve the stigma, to which they 
have thus far undeservedly, and, I trust, patiently sub- 
mitted. 

Must it be again for the thousandth time repeated, 
that Baptists believe only the immersion of a professed 
believer in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost, to be Christian baptism ; and that 
they consider Christian baptism as divinely appointed 
to precede admission into the church and the partaking 
of the Lord's Supper ? And as a consequence, they be- 
lieve, that if they should encourage the coming to the 
Lord's Supper, of those whom they cannot but consider 
as unbaptized, they would be neglecting the authority of 
the Head of the church, and, so far as principle is con- 
cerned, would incur the responsibility of displacing a 



152 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Christian ordinance. Much as they value the ordinance of 
the Lord's Supper, they cannot, with a good conscience, 
less esteem the ordinance of baptism ; but they feel bound 
by the authority of the King in Zion in respect to bap- 
tism, as well as in respect to the Lord's Supper. Let it be 
clearly proved, that the great body of Christ's followers 
have hitherto been in a mistake as to the fundamental 
principle, that baptism (whatever baptism be,) ought to 
precede admission into the church and to the Lord's 
Supper, and then there can be no just controversy 
among real Ciiristians in regard to admission to the 
Lord's table. But so long as those who regard sprink- 
ling as baptism, yet hold to the fundamental principle, 
that what is called baptism ought to be received pre- 
viously to observing the Lord's Supper, they surely ought 
not to censure Baptists for maintaining the same princi- 
ple, and for being consistent enough to act upon the 
principle, even in the face of opposition and unkindness 
from their Christian brethren.* 

Even " that distinguished man among" the Baptists, 
"whose sun has recently gone down, although its beams 
still illuminate the whole horizon, "t has left upon record 
the following sentences: " This author, " [tiie person 
against whom he was writing] " had informed us at the 
distance of a ^aw lines, that the Pedobaptists in general 
believe that none ouglit to come to tiie Lord's table who 
are not baptized. If this is correct, we may indeed easi- 
ly conceive of their being ofiended with us for deeming 

* For a comprehensive discussion of the subject of communion 
at the Lord's table, I refer the reader to the work entitled " Con- 
versations on Strict and Mixed Communion ; in which the princi- 
pal arguments in favor of the latter practice are stated, as nearly 
as possible, in the words of its most powerful advocate, the Rev. 
Robert Hall. By J. G. Fuller." t P. 390. 



COMMUNION. 153 

them unbaptized ; but how our refusal to admit them to 
communion should become the sul)jcct of debate, is 
utterly mysterious."* Again: *' Their practice," [that 
of the Baptists,] " is the inf^illible consequence of the 
opinion generally entertained respecting communion, 
conjoined with tlieir peculiar views of the baptismal 
rite. The recollection of this may suffice to rebut the 
ridicule, and silence the clamor, of those who loudly 
condemn the Baptists for a proceeding which, were 
they but to change their opinion on the subject of bap- 
tism, their own principles would compel them to adopt. 
They both concur in a common principle, from which 
the practice deemed so oftensive is the necessary result. "t 
Let this matter then be placed on its proper ground ; 
namely. Baptists practise restricted communion because 
(in common with the great body of the Saviour's fol- 
lowers,) they consider the reception of baptism as re- 
quisite to admission to the Lord's table ; and because, 
(what is peculiar to them,) they consider those only as 
baptized who have been immersed on a profession of 
their faith. Instead of making this matter an occasion 
of heart-burning and unkind expression, let it be ac- 
knowledged, that, painful as the practice may be, (and 
to whom so painful as to the Baptists themselves ?) 
when feeling only, aside from principle, is concerned, 
it yet has the merit of consistency. It is a regard to 
consistency and to the Lord's appointment, that makes 
them willing to separate, in respect to communion in 
an external ordinance, from those whom they highly 
respect as partakers of the common salvation, and with 
whom they rejoice now to participate in true Christian 



* Works of Robert Hall, Gregory's edition ; New York. Vol. 
I. P. 402. t Ibid, Vol. II. P. 213. 



154 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

communion, a communion of spirit, unspeakably more 
valuable than any external union, and which they hope 
to enjoy with them perfect, and unalloyed, and immor- 
tal in heaven. 

The Lord forbid that they should be " ready to break 
the church in pieces by contending for rites and 
forms."* The Lord, in the abundance of his compas- 
sion, forgive them, if this be their spirit, and bestow 
upon them a better mind. But if this be not their 
spirit, if they be actuated by a sincere desire to main- 
tain the authority of the Bible, to know and to obey 
their Saviour's will in regard to his own institutes, and to 
induce others to obey the Saviour's will ; if it be their 
sincere wish that all the Lord's people may be united in 
the bonds of Christian charity and Christian obedience; 
then, let not tlieir fellow Christians seem to bring an ac- 
cusation against them, but be gentle towards them, and 
patient. And let their fellow Christians repair, in sin- 
gleness of heart, to the Christian statute-book ; and, 
elevated by love to Ilim who died to redeem them, and 
who in deeply impressive circumstances said, ' If ye love 
me, keep my commandments,' let ihem seriously pon- 
der the question, how they can conscientiously persist 
in those practices which divide brethren, and respect- 
ing which they are not able justly to say, Thus saith 

THE VOLUMl^ OF INSPIRATION. 

* r. 3'jo. 



1 



I 



